Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep XI Ips 86/2009 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2009:XI.IPS.86.2009 AI generated

Request for legal protection against a final bail decision is inadmissible as it concerns bail, not detention.

Case Number Sklep XI Ips 86/2009
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the defendant's request for legal protection against a final decision denying bail and releasing from detention. The defendant argued the decision violated the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, but the court noted that legal protection requests are only permitted against final orders regarding the imposition or extension of detention. Since the contested decision concerned bail rather than detention, the request was deemed procedurally inadmissible under Article 423 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 420, paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 423, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act: A request for legal protection is inadmissible if filed against a final decision on bail, as such requests are limited to final orders regarding the imposition or extension of detention.

Keywords

AI generated
legal protection request bail decision detention order procedural admissibility Criminal Procedure Act final decision release from custody

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 420, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 420, paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 423, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act
AI generated
Sklep I R 3/2010
Supreme Court assigns jurisdiction to District Court in Piran based on value and domicile rules.
Sklep VIII R 19/2010
Supreme Court confirms labor court jurisdiction over employer liability for damages arising from employment relationship disputes.
VSK sodba Cpg 112/2013
Local authority's land deal claim dismissed as commercial contract subject to three-year statute of limitations.
Sklep I Ips 64/2010-83 (I Ips 176/2010)
Supreme Court dismisses protection of legality requests against final bail revocation orders before trial concludes.
VSRS Sklep I R 133/2023
Appeal dismissed: A conflict with a judge in the same building does not require transferring jurisdiction.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Zoper pravnomočni sklep, s katerim je sodišče zavrnilo obtoženčev predlog za določitev varščine in odpravo pripora, zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti ni dovoljena.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

A. 1. Okrožno sodišče v Kopru je z uvodoma citiranima sklepoma zavrnilo obtoženčev predlog za določitev varščine v znesku 15.000 EUR in za odpravo pripora. Višje sodišče v Kopru je s sklepom I Kp 93/2008 z dne 3.9.2008 obtoženčevi pritožbi zoper oba izpodbijana sklepa zavrnilo kot neutemeljeni.

2. Zoper navedeni pravnomočni sklep je obtoženec vložil zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti iz razlogov po 2. točki prvega odstavka 420. člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZKP) ter zaradi kršitev Ustave Republike Slovenije. Vrhovnemu sodišču predlaga, da izpodbijani pravnomočni sklep razveljavi oziroma spremeni tako, da pripor zoper njega odpravi.

B. 3. Po četrtem odstavku 420. člena ZKP se sme, ne glede na določbo prvega odstavka istega člena, med kazenskim postopkom, ki ni pravnomočno končan, vložiti zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti samo zoper pravnomočno odločbo o odreditvi in podaljšanju pripora. Obtoženec je zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti vložil zoper pravnomočni sklep, s katerim zunajobravnavni senat njegovemu predlogu za določitev varščine v znesku 15.000 EUR in odpravo pripora zoper njega ni ugodil. Zoper tako pravnomočno odločbo, s katero ni bilo odločeno o priporu – o odreditvi ali podaljšanju – pa zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti ni dovoljena in jo je zato Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije po drugem odstavku 423. člena ZKP zavrglo.