| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document Help

Title:Standard obrazloženosti odgovora na tožbo v primerjavi s standardom obrazloženosti ugovora zoper sklep o izvršbi izdan na podlagi verodostojne listine : magistrsko delo
Authors:ID Toplak, Barbara (Author)
ID Ivanc, Tjaša (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf MAG_Toplak_Barbara_2025.pdf (2,24 MB)
MD5: 804C73D2ED6ADDE2F5D147C109225276
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Master's thesis/paper
Typology:2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Odgovor na tožbo in ugovor zoper sklep o izvršbi na podlagi verodostojne listine sta pravna instituta, ki omogočata tožencu v pravdnem in dolžniku v izvršilnem postopku, da se učinkovito branita pred zahtevki nasprotne stranke. Njuna temeljna funkcija je zagotoviti pravično procesno ravnotežje tekom postopka. Oba instituta strankam zagotavljata pravico do obrambe in temeljita na ustavno zagotovljeni pravici do izjave kot sestavnem delu pravice do sodnega varstva. Ključna razlika med njima se kaže v zahtevanem standardu obrazloženosti, ki vpliva na učinkovitost procesne obrambe in varstvo pravic strank. V teoriji in praksi je vprašanje obrazloženosti ključnega pomena, saj ima pomemben vpliv na uspešnost procesne obrambe in zaščite pravic strank postopka. V pravdnem postopku ima toženec možnost skozi celoten postopek dopolnjevati svojo obrambo, saj se pravica do izjave zagotavlja pred izdajo meritorne sodne odločbe. Nasprotno pa mora dolžnik v izvršilnem postopku že ob vložitvi ugovora zoper sklep o izvršbi izdan na podlagi verodostojne listine podati ustrezno obrazložene in materialnopravno relevantne navedbe, sicer sodišče ugovor zavrne. To pomeni, da ima dolžnik bistveno manj manevrskega prostora pri svoji obrambi kot toženec v pravdi.
Keywords:tožba, sklep o izvršbi, verodostojna listina, obrazloženost, plačilni nalog, spor majhne vrednosti, zamudna sodba
Place of publishing:Maribor
Place of performance:Maribor
Publisher:B. Toplak
Year of publishing:2025
Number of pages:1 spletni vir (1 datoteka PDF (III, 47 str.))
PID:20.500.12556/DKUM-91976 New window
UDC:347.952(043.3)
COBISS.SI-ID:236343299 New window
Publication date in DKUM:19.05.2025
Views:209
Downloads:141
Metadata:XML DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:PF
:
Copy citation
  
Average score:(0 votes)
Your score:Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:Bookmark and Share



Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Licences

License:CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Link:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Description:The most restrictive Creative Commons license. This only allows people to download and share the work for no commercial gain and for no other purposes.
Licensing start date:10.03.2025

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:Standard of justification for a statement of defense against lawsuit compared to the standard of justification for an objection against the writ of execution issued on the basis of a credible document
Abstract:The statement of defence and the objection against a writ of execution based on credible document are legal instruments that allow the defendant in civil proceedings and the debtor in enforcement proceedings to effectively defend themselves against the claims of the opposing party. Their fundamental function is to ensure procedural balance and provide the parties with an adequate opportunity to protect their rights. Both instruments guarantee the right to defence and are based on the constitutionally guaranteed right to be heard as an integral part of the right to judicial protection. The key difference between them lies in the required standard of justification, which affects the effectiveness of procedural defence and the protection of the parties’ rights. In both legal theory and practice, the issue of justification is crucial, as it significantly influences the success of procedural defence and the safeguarding of rights. In civil proceedings, the defendant has the opportunity to continuously refine their defence throughout the process, as the right to be heard is ensured before a substantive court decision is issued. In contrast, in enforcement proceedings, the debtor must already provide sufficiently reasoned and legally relevant objections when filing an objection against writ of execution based on credible document; otherwise, the court will reject it. This means that the debtor has significantly less room to manoeuvre in their defence compared to the defendant in civil proceedings.
Keywords:lawsuit, writ of execution, credible document, justification, payment order, small claims dispute, default judgment


Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)
0 - 0 / 0
 
There are no comments!

Back
Logos of partners University of Maribor University of Ljubljana University of Primorska University of Nova Gorica