Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
VSL sklep I Kp 223/2000 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:I.KP.223.2000 Generato dall'IA

Slovenian court dismisses appeal filed five days after the 8-day deadline expired for a court warning. The appeal was rejected as untimely and unreasoned. The court ruled that the appeal was inadmissible due to the expiration of the statutory time limit. The court held that the appeal was untimely and unreasoned, dismissing it under Article 402 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court found the appeal inadmissible because it was filed five days after the 8-day deadline expired. The court ruled that the appeal was untimely and unreasoned, dismissing it under Article 402 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court found the appeal inadmissible because it was filed five days after the 8-day deadline expired. The court ruled that the appeal was untimely and unreasoned, dismissing it under Article 402 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court found the appeal inadmissible because it was filed five days after the 8-day deadline expired.

Numero d'incarto VSL sklep I Kp 223/2000
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 second-instance court dismissed the defendant's appeal as unfounded, upholding the first-instance court's rejection of the appeal as untimely. The defendant received a court warning for the crime of false accusation on January 13, 2000, but filed her appeal on January 26, 2000, five days after the 8-day deadline expired. The court ruled that the appeal was inadmissible because the statutory period had lapsed and could not be extended, and the defendant failed to provide any substantive grounds for her appeal.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Article 402 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 288/IV of the Criminal Code: An appeal filed after the expiration of the statutory time limit is inadmissible and must be rejected as untimely, regardless of the absence of substantive grounds.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
criminal procedure statutory time limit preclusive period false accusation court warning untimely appeal admissibility dubbio circa il carattere di infrazione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Article 402 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 288/IV of the Criminal Code
Generato dall'IA
Sklep II Ips 132/2010
Appeal against a stay of proceedings order is rejected as the procedure was not concluded by that ruling.
Sklep III Ips 32/94
Court dismisses appeal on procedural grounds, ruling business dispute rules apply despite individual defendant status.
VSK sklep I Cp 940/2004
Appeal dismissed; service of judgment to a lawyer who became a judge is valid, not grounds for retrial.
VSL sklep Cpg 991/93
Appeal dismissed: Missing legal instruction in judgment copy does not extend appeal deadline in commercial proceedings.
VSL sklep II Cp 3515/2009
Appeal court quashes default judgment due to improper service of process violating service rules.

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

Pritožba obdolženke se zavrne kot neutemeljena.

[JEDRO]

Sodišče prve stopnje je pravilno ugotovilo, da je obdolženka pritožbo zoper sklep, s katerim ji je bil izrečen sodni opomin, vložila 5 dni po izteku pritožbenega roka ter je zato utemeljeno njeno pritožbo zavrglo kot prepozno. Sodišče druge stopnje je zato pritožbo obdolženke, ki niti ni navedla pritožbenih razlogov in ni obrazložila svoje pritožbe, zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Z uvodoma navedenim sklepom je sodišče prve stopnje kot prepozno zavrglo pritožbo obdolženke, ki jo je vložila zoper sklep, s katerim ji je sodišče prve stopnje izreklo sodni opomin za storitev kaznivega dejanja krive ovadbe po čl. 288/IV KZ.

Zoper takšen sklep je obdolženka vložila pritožbo brez navedbe pritožbenega razloga in obrazložitve, saj je v njej zgolj prosila, da pritožbeno sodišče zadevo prouči.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Kot je razvidno iz podatkov kazenskega spisa, je obdolženka sklep, s katerim ji je sodišče prve stopnje izreklo sodni opomin, prejela 13.1.2000, pritožbo pa vložila šele 26.1.2000, tedaj 5 dni po izteku 8-dnevnega pritožbenega roka. Zato je sodišče prve stopnje ravnalo pravilno, ko je njeno pritožbo zavrglo kot prepozno, saj je navedeni rok prekluziven in ga tedaj ni mogoče podaljševati ter je sodišče prve stopnje obdolženko o takšnem roku tudi ustrezno seznanilo s pisnim pravnim poukom v odločbi, s katero ji je izreklo sodni opomin.

Glede na povedano je bilo potrebno pritožbo obdolženke zavrniti kot neutemeljeno (III. odst. 402. čl. ZKP).