Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
VSL sklep I Kp 1377/99 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:I.KP.1377.99 Generato dall'IA

Appeal dismissed; victims as prosecutors ordered to pay criminal proceedings costs despite withdrawn charges.

Numero d'incarto VSL sklep I Kp 1377/99
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Slovenia (SI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Higher Court in Ljubljana dismissed the appeals filed by two victims acting as prosecutors against a first-instance decision. The first instance court had correctly terminated the criminal proceedings due to the withdrawal of the prosecution's charges and subsequently ordered the victims to bear the procedural costs. The appellate court upheld this ruling, rejecting the argument that costs should not be incurred before the main trial begins, noting that the average cost covers necessary judicial operations.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

ZKP 96. odst. 3; 92. odst. 2; 402. odst. 3: When criminal proceedings are terminated due to the withdrawal of the prosecution's charges by the victims acting as prosecutors, they are legally obligated to pay the procedural costs, including the statutory minimum average cost, as these expenses are inherent to the judicial process regardless of the trial's status.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
criminal proceedings termination victims as prosecutors procedural costs allocation withdrawal of charges statutory minimum average cost diritto a una copertura assicurativa più estesa graduazione dei contributi spese per malattia prese in carico

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
ZKP 96. odst. 3
ZKP 92. odst. 2
ZKP 402. odst. 3
ZKP 437. odst. 1
ZKP 277. odst. 2
ZKP 370. točka 4
Generato dall'IA
VDSS sklep Pdp 863/2011
Appeal allowed; public sector pay dispute requires ZSPJS rules, not general civil law or ZJU appeal steps.
VDSS sklep Pdp 957/2016
Appeal court quashes first instance dismissal for premature contract termination, ruling it was a fixed-term expiry.
VDSS sklep Pdp 949/2014
Appeal granted; first-instance dismissal reversed due to timely appeal against employer's refusal to rectify violation.
VSC sodba Cp 1084/2007
Appeal dismissed; trader liable for breach of good faith duty regarding unauthorized company representation.
VSL Sklep I Cp 1773/2021
Court dismisses appeal for property disturbance claim filed after statutory limitation period expired. The appeal is rejected because the claim was not filed within the required 30-day period. The court rules that the limitation period runs from the first act of disturbance. The appeal is rejected due to the expiration of the 30-day limitation period for property disturbance claims. The court held that the limitation period runs from the first act of disturbance. The appeal is dismissed because the claim was filed after the 30-day limitation period expired. The court ruled that the limitation period for property disturbance runs from the first act of disturbance. The appeal is rejected as the claim was filed after the 30-day limitation period expired. The court held that the limitation period runs from the first act of disturbance. The appeal is dismissed because the claim was filed after the 30-day limitation period expired. The court ruled that the limitation period for property disturbance runs from the first act of disturbance.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Pritožbi oškodovancev kot tožilcev L. R. in P. D. se zavrneta kot neutemeljeni.

[JEDRO]

Pravilno je sodišče prve stopnje (ker se je kazenski postopek zoper obdolženca ustavil zaradi umika obtožnega predloga oškodovancev kot tožilcev), skladno z določbo tretjega odstavka 96. člena ZKP oškodovancema kot tožilcema v plačilo naložilo stroške kazenskega postopka iz 1. do 6. točke drugega odstavka 92. člena ZKP.

Povprečnino v višini 35.000,00 SIT je sodišče prve stopnje določilo na spodnjem zakonskem minimumu. Ker povprečnina pokriva stroške za delo sodišča (osebne in materialne izdatke sodišč za svoj personal oziroma režijo sodišč in drugih organov, ki sodelujejo v kazenskem postopku), ni moč pritrditi navedbam v pritožbah, da ti stroški niso nastali, ker še ni bila razpisana glavna obravnava.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Z izpodbijanim sklepom je sodišče prve stopnje, na podlagi določila prvega odstavka 437. člena ZKP v zvezi s drugim odstavkom 277. člena ZKP, zoper obdolženca zavrglo obtožni predlog oškodovancev kot tožilcev ter jima nerazdelno v plačilo naložilo stroške kazenskega postopka iz 1. do 5. točke drugega odstavka 92. člena ZKP ter povprečnino v višini 35.000, 00 SIT.

Zoper sklep sta se zaradi odločbe o stroških kazenskega postopka (pritožbeni razlog iz 4. točke 370. člena ZKP) pritožila oba oškodovanca kot tožilca ter predlagala, da sodišče druge stopnje pritožbama ugodi in izpodbijani sklep spremeni tako, da ju oprosti plačila stroškov postopka.

Pritožbi nista utemeljeni.

Pravilno je sodišče prve stopnje (ker se je kazenski postopek zoper obdolženca ustavil zaradi umika obtožnega predloga oškodovancev kot tožilcev), skladno z določbo tretjega odstavka 96. člena ZKP oškodovancema kot tožilcema v plačilo naložilo stroške kazenskega postopka iz 1. do 6. točke drugega odstavka 92. člena ZKP.

Povprečnino (ki se določi v znesku, ki znaša najmanj eno tretjino zadnje uradno objavljene povprečne mesečne netto plače v Republiki Sloveniji na zaposleno osebo in največ desetkratni znesek te plače) v višini 35.000,00 SIT je sodišče prve stopnje določilo na spodnjem zakonskem minimumu. Ker povprečnina pokriva stroške za delo sodišča (osebne in materialne izdatke sodišč za svoj personal oziroma režijo sodišč in drugih organov, ki sodelujejo v kazenskem postopku), ni moč pritrditi navedbam v pritožbah, da ti stroški niso nastali, ker še ni bila razpisana glavna obravnava. Glede na navedeno je sodišče druge stopnje pritožbi oškodovancev kot tožilcev zavrnilo kot neutemeljeni (tretji odstavek 402. člena ZKP).