Legislator Case Law & Legislation
Sklep I Up 132/2008 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2009:I.UP.132.2008 AI generated

Administrative court dismisses appeal; weekends and holidays do not extend filing deadlines for administrative lawsuits.

Case Number Sklep I Up 132/2008
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia dismissed the appeal against a first-instance decision that rejected a lawsuit as filed too late. The plaintiffs argued that the statutory deadline should be extended to include weekends, holidays, and specific public holidays like Labor Day. The court ruled that administrative deadlines run continuously without interruption on non-working days, meaning the deadline expired on the last working day before the holiday.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o upravnem sporu; Zakon o pravdnem postopku: Administrative filing deadlines run continuously and are not extended by weekends, public holidays, or other non-working days.

Keywords

AI generated
administrative lawsuit filing deadline public holidays statutory period continuous running non-working days procedural time limit

Cited Legislation

AI generated
2. point of the first paragraph of Article 34 of the Administrative Dispute Act (ZUS)
Article 111, paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for Administrative Proceedings (ZPP-UPB2)
Article 112, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPP)
Articles 3 and 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (ZUP)
Article 76 in conjunction with Article 82 of the Administrative Dispute Act (ZUS-1)
AI generated
Sklep I Up 370/2008
Appeal dismissed; late-filed administrative lawsuit rejected as inadmissible due to missed statutory deadline.
VSL sklep II Cp 1951/2012
Appeal allowed: death of plaintiff does not bar suit; heir succeeds and appeal dismissed. (16 words)
VSL Sklep I Cpg 543/2019
Appeal allowed; first instance court erred by rejecting claim due to deceased defendant under new ZPP-E rules.
VSL sklep II Cp 2189/2016
Appeal dismissed; Article 367 of Obligations Act protects only limitation periods, not preclusion periods. The court ruled that the deadline to sue for contract formation is a preclusion period, not a limitation period. The appeal was rejected because the lower court correctly applied the law regarding the nature of the deadline. The plaintiff argued that the deadline should be a limitation period to allow for transfer of jurisdiction, but the court held that Article 367 of the Obligations Act only protects limitation periods, not preclusion periods. The court decided as it did because the plaintiff's arguments regarding the distinction between limitation and preclusion periods were not supported by the relevant legal provisions. The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court's decision was confirmed. The plaintiff and defendant each bear their own costs of the appeal proceedings. The court ruled that the deadline to file a lawsuit for the conclusion of the main contract is a preclusion period, not a limitation period. The court held that Article 367 of the Obligations Act protects only limitation periods, not preclusion periods. The court decided as it did because the plaintiff's arguments regarding the distinction between limitation and preclusion periods were not supported by the relevant legal provisions. The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court's decision was confirmed. The plaintiff and defendant each bear their own costs of the appeal proceedings. The court ruled that the deadline to file a lawsuit for the conclusion of the main contract is a preclusion period, not a limitation period. The court held that Article 367 of the Obligations Act protects only limitation periods, not preclusion periods. The court decided as it did because the plaintiff's arguments regarding the distinction between limitation and preclusion periods were not supported by the relevant legal provisions. The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court's decision was confirmed. The plaintiff and defendant each bear their own costs of the appeal proceedings.
VSL sodba II Cp 151/2009
Appeal dismissed; driver bears towing and tag removal costs per traffic safety law.

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

Pritožba se zavrne in se potrdi izpodbijani sklep.

[JEDRO]

Na začetek in na tek roka za vložitev tožbe ne vplivajo sobote, nedelje ter prazniki in drugi dela prosti dnevi, ki jih določa zakon. Zakonski rok na tak dan ne more le poteči, vsekakor pa nemoteno teče tudi na dan upora proti okupatorju (27. april) in na praznik dela (1. in 2. maj).

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Z izpodbijanim sklepom je sodišče prve stopnje na podlagi določbe 2. točke prvega odstavka 34. člena Zakona o upravnem sporu – ZUS (Ur. l. RS, št. 50/97 in 70/2000) v zvezi s 104. členom ZUS-1 zavrglo kot prepozno tožbo tožnikov zoper odločbo tožene stranke z dne 16. 3. 2006, s katero je ta med drugim odločila, da morata tožnika plačati nadomestilo za degradacijo in uzurpacijo prostora.

2. Sodišče prve stopnje v izpodbijanem sklepu navaja, da je rok za vložitev tožbe v tem upravnem sporu potekel 15. 5. 2006 in je zato tožba, vložena s priporočeno pošiljko na sodišče 22. 5. 2006, prepozna.

3. Tožnika v pritožbi pojasnjujeta, da se je izpodbijana odločba štela tožniku za vročeno po določbah ZUP zato, ker je ob delavnikih na začasnem delu v tujini. Rok za vložitev tožbe pa po njunem mnenju ne more všteti tudi dni prvomajskih praznikov in zato predlagata, da pritožbeno sodišče upošteva praznične dni in te odšteje od datuma prepozne vložitve tožbe.

4. Tožena stranka na pritožbo ni odgovorila.

5. Pritožba ni utemeljena.

6. Po presoji pritožbenega sodišča je sodišče prve stopnje pravilno zavrglo tožbo tožnikov kot prepozno in pri tem svojo odločitev oprlo na drugi in četrti odstavek 111. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku – ZPP-UPB2 (Ur. l. RS, št. 36/2004). Če je vloga vezana na rok, se namreč po določbi prvega odstavka 112. člena ZPP šteje, da je vložena pravočasno, če je izročena pristojnemu sodišču, preden se rok izteče. Tako je sodišče prve stopnje pravilno navedlo, da je rok za vložitev tožbe v tem upravnem sporu potekel 15. 5. 2006, saj je tožnica izpodbijano odločbo prejela osebno 30. 3. 2006, tožniku pa je bila odločba vročena v skladu z določbami tretjega in četrtega odstavka 87. člena Zakona o splošnem upravnem postopku (ZUP), in se je tako štelo, da mu je bila vročena 14. 4. 2006. Pravilna je tudi navedba v izpodbijanem sklepu, da se v primerih, če je zadnji dan roka sobota, nedelja, praznik ali drug dela prost dan, ki ga določa Zakon o praznikih in drugih dela prostih dnevih, se izteče rok s pretekom prvega prihodnjega delovnika. To pa pomeni, da na začetek in na tek roka za vložitev tožbe ne vplivajo sobote, nedelje ter prazniki in drugi dela prosti dnevi, ki jih določa zakon. Zakonski rok na tak dan ne more le poteči, vsekakor pa nemoteno teče tudi na dan upora proti okupatorju (27. april) in na praznik dela (1. in 2. maj). Zato pritožbene navedbe tožnikov na drugačno odločitev pritožbenega sodišča ne morejo vplivati.

7. Glede na navedeno je Vrhovno sodišče na podlagi 76. v zvezi z 82. členom Zakona o upravnem sporu – ZUS-1 (Ur. l. RS, št. 105/2006) zavrnilo pritožbo kot neutemeljeno in potrdilo izpodbijani sklep sodišča prve stopnje.