Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Slovak legal mess

Expand Messages
  • Charlie Stanford
    Good morning everybody. Hope someone can point me in the right direction with this. It is in a Slovak divorce case and I think the way they put it is a bit
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Good morning everybody. Hope someone can point me in the right direction with this. It is in a Slovak divorce case and I think the way they put it is a bit funny so need to check. I assumed in the bit between ***s below that the Krajsky sud Presov must just uphold/confirm the decision of the Okresny sud, but I do not see in that case why they have the "bolo zistene, ze [...] bolo rozhodnute [...] tak, ze uznesenie bolo potvrdene".

      Thank you for any input,

      Charlie





      Na tunajsom sude (Okresny sud) prebieha konanie o rozvod manzelstva a o uprave prav a povinnosti manzelov k maloletemu dietatu z ich manzelstva na cas po rozvode a to na zaklade navrhu matky maloleteho dietata.



      V priebehu konania otec maloleteho dietata podal navrh na nariadenie predbezneho opatrenia, ktorym by sud zveril maloleteho do osobnej starostlivosti otca a matku zaviazal prispievat na vyzivu maloleteho sumou 50,-? mesacne, a to do pravoplatneho skoncenia konania o rozvod ich manzelstva. Navrh otca na nariadenie predbezneho opatrenia sud uznesenim c.k. 6T 22/2008 zo dna 4.5.2009 zamietol a ucastnikom nahradu trov konania nepriznal. Proti tomuto uzneseniu otec maloleteho dietata podal prostrednictvom pravnej zastupkyne odvolanie. ***V civilnej kancelarii Krajského sudu Presov bolo zistene, ze o podanom odvolaní bolo rozhodnute dna 26.5.2009 tak, ze napadnute uznesenie bolo potvrdene.***


      --
      Jsem chráněn bezplatným SPAMfighter pro soukromé uživatele.
      Až doposud mě ušetřil příjmu 1553 spam-emailů.
      Platící uživatelé tuto zprávu ve svých e-mailech nedostavají.
      Stáhněte si zadarmo SPAMfighter zde: www.spamfighter.com/lcs


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Josef Hlavac
      Hi Charlie, IANAL, but I understand it that the father, through his attorney, appealed the ruling of the okresny sud in a higher court ( krajsky sud ), the
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 2, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Charlie,

        IANAL, but I understand it that the father, through his attorney,
        appealed the ruling of the "okresny sud" in a higher court ("krajsky
        sud"), the "krajsky sud" has looked into the case and, in its ruling,
        confirmed the original verdict (that was being appealed).

        The wording perhaps indicates that this is most likely a report about
        this case (newspaper article? or an article at the okresny sud
        website?), and that whoever was investigating it asked at the "krajsky
        sud" office, discovering that the "krajsky sud" decided the case on 26th
        May as described above.

        HTH,
        Josef

        Charlie Stanford wrote:
        > Good morning everybody. Hope someone can point me in the right direction with this. It is in a Slovak divorce case and I think the way they put it is a bit funny so need to check. I assumed in the bit between ***s below that the Krajsky sud Presov must just uphold/confirm the decision of the Okresny sud, but I do not see in that case why they have the "bolo zistene, ze [...] bolo rozhodnute [...] tak, ze uznesenie bolo potvrdene".
        >
        > Thank you for any input,
        >
        > Charlie
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Na tunajsom sude (Okresny sud) prebieha konanie o rozvod manzelstva a o uprave prav a povinnosti manzelov k maloletemu dietatu z ich manzelstva na cas po rozvode a to na zaklade navrhu matky maloleteho dietata.
        >
        >
        >
        > V priebehu konania otec maloleteho dietata podal navrh na nariadenie predbezneho opatrenia, ktorym by sud zveril maloleteho do osobnej starostlivosti otca a matku zaviazal prispievat na vyzivu maloleteho sumou 50,-? mesacne, a to do pravoplatneho skoncenia konania o rozvod ich manzelstva. Navrh otca na nariadenie predbezneho opatrenia sud uznesenim c.k. 6T 22/2008 zo dna 4.5.2009 zamietol a ucastnikom nahradu trov konania nepriznal. Proti tomuto uzneseniu otec maloleteho dietata podal prostrednictvom pravnej zastupkyne odvolanie. ***V civilnej kancelarii Krajského sudu Presov bolo zistene, ze o podanom odvolaní bolo rozhodnute dna 26.5.2009 tak, ze napadnute uznesenie bolo potvrdene.***
        >
        >
        >
      • Jirka Bolech
        Hi Charlie, If it s the sort of passive form what puzzles you here, you need to look at the place expression at the beginning of your marked section, V
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 2, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Charlie,

          If it's the sort of passive form what puzzles you here, you need to look at
          the place expression at the beginning of your marked section, "V civilnej
          kancelarii Krajskeho sudu Presov", as the actual (semantic) subject. That
          is, the _staff thereof_ 'found out that the appeal submitted had been
          decided upon as of May 26, 2009, confirming the ruling appealed against'
          (convert to your native English)...

          Jirka Bolech



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Charlie Stanford
          Thank you Jirka and Josef. That would make sense. IANAL - I am not a lawyer? took me about half an hour to work that one out. ... From: Jirka Bolech To:
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 2, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Thank you Jirka and Josef. That would make sense. IANAL - I am not a lawyer? took me about half an hour to work that one out.

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Jirka Bolech
            To: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:13 AM
            Subject: RE: [Czechlist] Slovak legal mess



            Hi Charlie,

            If it's the sort of passive form what puzzles you here, you need to look at
            the place expression at the beginning of your marked section, "V civilnej
            kancelarii Krajskeho sudu Presov", as the actual (semantic) subject. That
            is, the _staff thereof_ 'found out that the appeal submitted had been
            decided upon as of May 26, 2009, confirming the ruling appealed against'
            (convert to your native English)...

            Jirka Bolech


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





            --
            Jsem chráněn bezplatným SPAMfighter pro soukromé uživatele.
            Až doposud mě ušetřil příjmu 1553 spam-emailů.
            Platící uživatelé tuto zprávu ve svých e-mailech nedostavají.
            Stáhněte si zadarmo SPAMfighter zde: www.spamfighter.com/lcs


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Josef Hlavac
            IANAL - you got it exactly right. For the record - www.acronymfinder.com is a good way to solve these. Regarding Jirka s reply: I believe that V civilnej
            Message 5 of 5 , Dec 2, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              IANAL - you got it exactly right. For the record - www.acronymfinder.com
              is a good way to solve these.

              Regarding Jirka's reply:
              I believe that "V civilnej kancelarii [...] bolo zistene" does not
              necessarily mean that the very staff of the office had to find out - it
              could have been someone else who called them or visited them (it would
              be a clumsy expression but that does not surprise me if the authors are
              lawyers).


              Josef
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.