| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font
First page > Show document

Show document Help

Title:Zamudna sodba kot posledica nepravilne vročitve v pravdnem postopku: analiza pravnih sredstev v slovenskem civilnem postopku in po Uredbi (EU) 2020/1784 : analiza pravnih sredstev v slovenskem civilnem postopku in po Uredbi (EU) 2020/1784
Authors:ID Kolenc, Nives (Author)
ID Baghrizabehi, Denis (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf MAG_Kolenc_Nives_2026.pdf (1,42 MB)
MD5: 0415F8B734050A1C7CC3A24B57D6E928
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Master's thesis/paper
Typology:2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Magistrsko delo obravnava problematiko zamudne sodbe kot posledice nepravilne vročitve sodnih pisanj v civilnem pravdnem postopku. V središču raziskave je vprašanje, v kolikšni meri obstoječa pravna ureditev zagotavlja učinkovito varstvo toženca, ki zaradi nepravilne ali zgolj formalne vročitve ni imel dejanske možnosti sodelovati v postopku. Pravilna vročitev namreč predstavlja temeljno procesno predpostavko za uresničevanje načela kontradiktornosti in pravice do izjave, ki jo zagotavlja Ustava RS, zato napake pri vročitvi neposredno vplivajo na zakonitost izdaje zamudne sodbe. Slovenski pravdni postopek temelji na sistemu afirmativne litiskontestacije, v katerem se pasivnost toženca razlaga kot priznanje tožbenih navedb. Takšna ureditev prispeva k hitrosti in učinkovitosti postopka, vendar hkrati ustvarja tveganje, da je zamudna sodba izdana tudi v primerih, ko toženec za postopek dejansko ni vedel. Navedeno tveganje se zlasti odraža pri uporabi fikcije vročitve, ki lahko sproži tek procesnih rokov, kljub temu da naslovnik sodnega pisanja dejansko ni prejel in se z njim ni seznanil. Na podlagi analize sodne prakse slovenskih sodišč je mogoče ugotoviti, da pravilna vročitev tožbe sicer predstavlja temeljno predpostavko za izdajo zamudne sodbe, vendar napake pri vročitvi same po sebi še ne vodijo do njene avtomatične razveljavitve. To velja zlasti v primerih, ko je bila vročitev formalno pravilno izvedena, čeprav tožba dejansko ni dosegla naslovnika. V takšnih primerih je stranka postavljena v položaj, ko mora sama izkazati vpliv nepravilnosti na svoje procesne pravice, potem ko so procesni roki navadno že potekli. V čezmejnem kontekstu Uredba (EU) 2020/1784 sicer krepi varstvo prejemnika z določenimi procesnimi jamstvi, vendar praksa kaže, da tveganje za izdajo zamudne sodbe zaradi formalne, a vsebinsko pomanjkljive vročitve ni v celoti odpravljeno. Še posebej problematični ostajajo primeri, ko naslovnik ne razume jezika pisanja ali ni ustrezno poučen o svojih pravicah. Magistrsko delo zaključuje, da obstoječi sistem pravnih sredstev sicer omogoča odpravo posledic nepravilne vročitve, vendar njihova učinkovitost v praksi ni vedno zagotovljena. Razmerje med učinkovitostjo postopka in varstvom procesnih pravic tako ostaja nepopolno uravnoteženo.
Keywords:civilni postopek, sodno varstvo, vročanje sodnih pisanj, fikcija vročitve, načelo kontradiktornosti, pravna sredstva, obnova postopka, čezmejno vročanje, varstvo pravic prejemnika
Place of publishing:Maribor
Place of performance:Maribor
Publisher:N. Kolenc
Year of publishing:2026
Number of pages:1 spletni vir (1 datoteka PDF (78 str.))
PID:20.500.12556/DKUM-98306 New window
UDC:347.952(043.3)
COBISS.SI-ID:285208067 New window
Publication date in DKUM:17.07.2026
Views:291
Downloads:28
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-ND 4.0, Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Link:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/
Description:Under the NoDerivatives Creative Commons license one can take a work released under this license and re-distribute it, but it cannot be shared with others in adapted form, and credit must be provided to the author.
Licensing start date:04.06.2026

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:Default judgment as a consequence of improper service of documents in civil proceedings: an analysis of legal remedies in slovenian civil procedure and under Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 : an analysis of legal remedies in slovenian civil procedure and under Regulation (EU) 2020/1784
Abstract:This master’s thesis examines the issue of default judgments resulting from the improper service of court documents in civil litigation. At the heart of the research is the question of to what extent the existing legal framework ensures effective protection for a defendant who, due to improper or merely formal service, had no real opportunity to participate in the proceedings. Proper service of process is, in fact, a fundamental procedural prerequisite for the realization of the adversarial principle and the right to be heard, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, therefore, errors in service directly affect the legality of the issuance of a default judgment. Slovenian civil procedure is based on a system of affirmative litigation, in which the defendant’s passivity is interpreted as an admission of the plaintiff’s claims. Such a system contributes to the speed and efficiency of the proceedings, but at the same time creates the risk that a default judgment will be issued even in cases where the defendant was actually unaware of the proceedings. This risk is particularly evident in the application of the fiction of service, which can trigger the running of procedural deadlines even though the addressee of the judicial document did not actually receive it and was not made aware of it. Based on an analysis of the case law of Slovenian courts, it can be concluded that while proper service of the complaint is a fundamental prerequisite for the issuance of a default judgment, errors in service do not in and of themselves lead to its automatic annulment. This applies particularly in cases where service was formally correct, even though the complaint did not actually reach the addressee. In such cases, the party is placed in a position where it must itself demonstrate the impact of the irregularity on its procedural rights after the procedural deadlines have typically already expired. In a cross-border context, Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 does strengthen the protection of the recipient through certain procedural safeguards, but practice shows that the risk of a default judgment being issued due to formal, yet substantively deficient, service has not been fully eliminated. Cases where the addressee does not understand the language of the document or has not been adequately informed of their rights remain particularly problematic. The master’s thesis concludes that while the existing system of legal remedies does allow for the rectification of the consequences of improper service, their effectiveness in practice is not always guaranteed. The balance between the efficiency of the proceedings and the protection of procedural rights thus remains imperfectly balanced.
Keywords:civil procedure, judicial protection, service of documents, service fiction, principle of adversarial proceedings, legal remedies, reopening of proceedings, cross-border service, protection of the addressee’s rights


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