TFL Vsebine / Pravni letopis

Novela zakona o pravdnem postopku je obsežno reformirala vročanje. Kljub poenostavitvi nekaterih postopkov so v praksi še pojavljajo številna nerešena vprašanja. Zaradi zapletov pri razlikovanju osebne in neosebne vročitve nekatera sodišča uporabljajo samo osebno vročitev, ki je bolj zanesljiva. V praksi se težave med drugim pojavljajo tudi pri vročanju pravnim osebam in drugim subjektom vpisa v register, odvetnikom, pri vročanju na delovnem mestu, v poštni predal in pri vročitvi osebam neznanega bivališča. Ustavno sodišče je razveljavilo določbe o vročitvi na naslovu za vročanje, zato je treba pri osebah neznanega bivališča najprej sprožiti postopek ugotavljanja dejanskega prebivališča.

The latest amendments to Slovenian Civil Procedure Act have changed the service of process in many aspects. However, despite the simplifications of procedure, several unsettled questions remain. The choice between personal and »ordinary« service of process can be problematic in practice. This has lead to some courts’ decision to always use personal service, which is more reliable and offers more procedural guarantees to the parties. Other practical issues include service to legal persons and other registry subjects, service to lawyers, service via employer, service into P.O. Box, and service to persons whose actual residence is unknown. Concerning the latter, the Constitutional Court of Slovenia annulled the part of legislation allowing service of process at the »address for delivery« regardless to where the party actually lives. Consequently, the courts now have to initiate the procedure of determining the actual residence of the absent person, which is performed by administrative organs.

Outstanding Questions Regarding the Service of Process in Practice