. . . "\n
\n \n
\n\n \n 20 Cdo 1058/2013\n \n\n\n \n U S N E S E N \u00CD\n \n\n\n \n \n Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ED soud \u010Cesk\u00E9 republiky rozhodl v sen\u00E1t\u011B slo\u017Een\u00E9m z p\u0159edsedy JUDr. Vladim\u00EDra Miku\u0161ka a soudky\u0148 JUDr. Olgy Pu\u0161kinov\u00E9 a JUDr. Miroslavy Jirmanov\u00E9, Ph.D. v exeku\u010Dn\u00ED v\u011Bci opr\u00E1vn\u011Bn\u00E9 SERRAGIS LOAN MANAGEMENT LTD, reg. \u010C. HE 257931, se s\u00EDdlem Afentrikas, 4. Afentrika Court, Office 2, Larnaca, Kypr identifika\u010Dn\u00ED \u010D\u00EDslo osoby 00257931, proti povinn\u00E9mu J. Z., pro 17.777,73 K\u010D s p\u0159\u00EDslu\u0161enstv\u00EDm, veden\u00E9 u Okresn\u00EDho soudu v Hradci Kr\u00E1lov\u00E9 pod sp. zn. 32EXE 2201/2011, o dovol\u00E1n\u00ED povinn\u00E9ho proti usnesen\u00ED Krajsk\u00E9ho soudu v Hradci Kr\u00E1lov\u00E9 z 26. listopadu 2012, \u010D. j. 21Co 604/2012-46, takto :\n \n\n\n \n Dovolac\u00ED \u0159\u00EDzen\u00ED se zastavuje.\n \n\n\n \n Od\u016Fvodn\u011Bn\u00ED :\n \n\n\n \n Proti shora ozna\u010Den\u00E9mu rozhodnut\u00ED, j\u00EDm\u017E krajsk\u00FD soud potvrdil usnesen\u00ED ze 14. 10. 2012, \u010D. j. 137EX 11640/11-38, kter\u00FDm JUDr. Petr Koci\u00E1n, soudn\u00ED exekutor Exekutorsk\u00E9ho \u00FA\u0159adu Brno-venkov, podle ustanoven\u00ED \u00A7 36 odst. 5 exeku\u010Dn\u00EDho \u0159\u00E1du p\u0159ipustil vstup spole\u010Dnosti SERRAGIS LOAN MANAGEMENT LTD do exeku\u010Dn\u00EDho \u0159\u00EDzen\u00ED na m\u00EDsto p\u016Fvodn\u00EDho opr\u00E1vn\u011Bn\u00E9ho AVALON CONTINENTAL S.A. reg. \u010D. 1421886, podal povinn\u00FD dovol\u00E1n\u00ED.\n \n\n\n \n Jeliko\u017E dovol\u00E1n\u00ED m\u011Blo nedostatky br\u00E1n\u00EDc\u00ED dal\u0161\u00EDmu pokra\u010Dov\u00E1n\u00ED dovolac\u00EDho \u0159\u00EDzen\u00ED ( spo\u010D\u00EDvaj\u00EDc\u00ED v absenci n\u00E1le\u017Eitost\u00ED dovol\u00E1n\u00ED podle \u00A7 241a odst. 1 o. s. \u0159. ) a nebylo ani seps\u00E1no advok\u00E1tem, soudn\u00ED exekutor dovolatele usnesen\u00EDm z 18. 3. 2013, \u010D. j. 137Ex 11640/11-57, doru\u010Den\u00FDm mu 20. 3. t\u00E9ho\u017E roku, vyzval, aby ve lh\u016Ft\u011B 15 dn\u016F od doru\u010Den\u00ED usnesen\u00ED nedostatky pod\u00E1n\u00ED odstranil a zvolil si z\u00E1stupcem advok\u00E1ta, jeho\u017E prost\u0159ednictv\u00EDm pod\u00E1 \u0159\u00E1dn\u00E9 dovol\u00E1n\u00ED. Z\u00E1rove\u0148 ho pou\u010Dil, \u017Ee nevyhov\u00ED-li v\u00FDzv\u011B, bude dovolac\u00ED \u0159\u00EDzen\u00ED zastaveno. Dovolatel v\u0161ak vyt\u010Den\u00E9 nedostatky neodstranil.\n \n\n\n \n Z ustanoven\u00ED \u00A7 241 odst. 1, 2 p\u00EDsm. a ), odst. 4 o. s. \u0159. plyne, \u017Ee dovolatel ( fyzick\u00E1 osoba ), nem\u00E1-li pr\u00E1vnick\u00E9 vzd\u011Bl\u00E1n\u00ED, mus\u00ED b\u00FDt zastoupena advok\u00E1tem ( p\u0159\u00EDp. not\u00E1\u0159em ), jen\u017E mus\u00ED dovol\u00E1n\u00ED tak\u00E9 sepsat. Zvol\u00ED-li si advok\u00E1ta a\u017E pot\u00E9, co s\u00E1m podal dovol\u00E1n\u00ED, je ke spln\u011Bn\u00ED podm\u00EDnky dovolatelova zastoupen\u00ED nezbytn\u00E9, aby zmocn\u011Bnec ( advok\u00E1t ) j\u00EDm d\u0159\u00EDve u\u010Din\u011Bn\u00E9 pod\u00E1n\u00ED nahradil nebo doplnil vlastn\u00EDm, pop\u0159. sd\u011Blil soudu, \u017Ee se s ji\u017E u\u010Din\u011Bn\u00FDm pod\u00E1n\u00EDm ztoto\u017E\u0148uje.\n \n\n\n \n Proto\u017Ee podm\u00EDnka povinn\u00E9ho zastoupen\u00ED dovolatele v dovolac\u00EDm \u0159\u00EDzen\u00ED ( k jej\u00EDmu\u017E spln\u011Bn\u00ED je t\u0159eba i sepisu dovol\u00E1n\u00ED advok\u00E1tem, viz usnesen\u00ED Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00EDho soudu z 27. kv\u011Btna 1999, sp. zn. 26 Cdo 1121/99, uve\u0159ejn\u011Bn\u00E9 v \u010Dasopise Soudn\u00ED judikatura \u010D. 6, ro\u010Dn\u00EDk 2000 pod po\u0159. \u010D. 64 ) je podm\u00EDnkou t\u00FDkaj\u00EDc\u00ED se \u00FA\u010Dastn\u00EDka \u0159\u00EDzen\u00ED, jej\u00ED\u017E nedostatek br\u00E1n\u00ED - krom\u011B usnesen\u00ED, kter\u00FDm se dovolac\u00ED \u0159\u00EDzen\u00ED pr\u00E1v\u011B pro neodstran\u011Bn\u00ED tohoto nedostatku zastavuje - vyd\u00E1n\u00ED rozhodnut\u00ED, j\u00EDm\u017E se \u0159\u00EDzen\u00ED kon\u010D\u00ED ( \u00A7 241 odst. 1 o. s. \u0159. ), a proto\u017Ee ke zhojen\u00ED tohoto nedostatku p\u0159es \u0159\u00E1dnou v\u00FDzvu soudu nedo\u0161lo, Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ED soud \u0159\u00EDzen\u00ED o dovol\u00E1n\u00ED podle \u00A7 104 odst. 2 a \u00A7 243c odst. 1 o. s. \u0159. zastavil.\n \n\n\n \n O p\u0159\u00EDpadn\u00FDch n\u00E1kladech exekuce bude rozhodnuto podle ustanoven\u00ED Hlavy VI. exeku\u010Dn\u00EDho \u0159\u00E1du.\n \n \n\n\n \n Proti tomuto usnesen\u00ED nen\u00ED p\u0159\u00EDpustn\u00FD opravn\u00FD prost\u0159edek.\n \n\n\n \n V Brn\u011B dne 30. dubna 2013\n \n\n\n \n JUDr. Vladim\u00EDr Miku\u0161ekp\u0159edseda sen\u00E1tu\n \n\n
\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ED soud \u010Cesk\u00E9 republiky\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n Okresn\u00ED soud v Hradci Kr\u00E1lov\u00E9\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n Krajsk\u00FD soud v Hradci Kr\u00E1lov\u00E9\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n krajsk\u00FD soud\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n \u00A7241a odst. 1, 99-1963/1963 Sb.\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n \u00A7241 odst. 1 p\u00EDsm. a), 99-1963/1963 Sb.\n
\n
\n
\n
\n \u00A7241 odst. 4, 99-1963/1963 Sb.\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ED soud\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n \u00A7241 odst. 1, 99-1963/1963 Sb.\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ED soud\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n \u00A7104 odst. 2, 99-1963/1963 Sb.\n
\n
\n
\n
\n \u00A7243c odst. 1, 99-1963/1963 Sb.\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
" . .