Up-1130/05

Reference no.:
Up-1130/05
Objavljeno:
Official Gazette RS, No. 11/2007 and OdlUS XVI, 35 | 11.01.2007
ECLI:
ECLI:SI:USRS:2007:Up.1130.05
Abstract:
It follows from the second paragraph of Article 53 of the Execution of Judgments in Civil Matters and Securing of Claims Act in what cases an objection is regarded as reasoned. According to the aforementioned provision, an objection is reasoned if a debtor states all the facts by which he/she substantiates such and submits evidence. A contrario, an objection is not reasoned if it does not contain such. Thus, an objection is not reasoned if it does not allege any legally relevant facts or does not contain any arguments supporting the statements contained therein and/or evidence which refer to such facts or statements. If an objection contains substantiated statements/facts and evidence which could lead to a decision on the substantiality thereof, it is thus reasoned. If the objection fulfils the aforementioned criteria and the court dismisses such as not being reasoned, such decision of the court is arbitrary.
 
The decision of the appellate court on the dismissal of the appeal which was based on the standpoint that after the finality of a writ of execution the complainants cannot object that they were passive members of the company entails a violation of the right to make statements determined in Article 22 of the Constitution In the concrete case, the court of execution following the striking of the company in question from the register of companies did continue the execution proceedings against the complainants by a writ on the continuation of the execution on the basis of a writ of execution against the company so deleted, and gave them the opportunity to file an objection against the issued writ, which, however, was considered to be unsubstantiated due to an objection regarding their passive role in the company, and submitted such to the appellate court in order for it to decide on such like an appeal. Nevertheless, the complainants were given the opportunity to file an objection that they were passive members of the company and thereby also the opportunity for the courts to consider (as legally relevant) such allegations and evidence in their deciding only by Constitutional Court Decision No. U-I-135/00, which for the first time implemented the differentiation between passive and active members of a company and the criteria for such differentiation.
Document in PDF:
Type of procedure:
constitutional complaint
Type of act:
individual act
Date of application:
24.11.2005
Date of decision:
11.01.2007
Type of decision adopted:
decision
Outcome of proceedings:
dismissal annulment or annulment ab initio
Document:
AN02957