Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS sklep III R 1/2016 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2016:III.R.1.2016 AI generated

Supreme Court transfers case to ensure impartiality when same court judges damages for its own delay.

Case Number VSRS sklep III R 1/2016
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia transferred the case to the District Court in Koper to ensure judicial impartiality. The plaintiff sought damages from the District Court in Ljubljani for procedural delays, while the defendant argued that three judges from that same court had already heard the underlying dispute. The court ruled that having the same judges adjudicate both the original case and the subsequent damages claim would create an appearance of bias, thereby justifying the transfer.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Act on Civil Procedure; A court may be transferred to another competent court if there is a clear risk that the appearance of impartiality will be compromised, such as when judges of the original case are required to rule on damages caused by that same court.

Keywords

AI generated
appearance of impartiality transfer of jurisdiction judicial bias civil procedure law damages for delay same court hearing procedural fairness

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 67 of the Act on Civil Procedure

Cited Case Law

AI generated
III R 26/2013
Supreme Court transfers tort claim from Novigrad to Koper court due to impartiality concerns.
III R 12/2015
Supreme Court transfers case to Kranj court to ensure impartiality against Ljubljana court's alleged misconduct.
AI generated
VSRS Sklep III R 43/2018
Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction claim in delay compensation case citing systemic court delays as insufficient grounds.
VSL sklep R 419/2010
Appeal court rules that claim for state compensation under Constitution Art. 26 falls under general jurisdiction rules, not special jurisdiction law.
VSRS sklep I R 78/2014
Supreme Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction based solely on defendant's changed residence without other special circumstances.
VSRS sklep I R 123/2013
Supreme Court dismisses request to transfer case due to alleged judicial bias, ruling complaints about past conduct are not valid grounds under ZPP Art. 67.
VSL sklep PRp 223/2016
Appeal granted; first-instance court failed to serve summons correctly, invalidating dismissal of legal protection request.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Za odločanje v tej zadevi se določi Okrožno sodišče v Kopru.

[JEDRO]

Po ustaljeni sodni praksi bi bil videz nepristranskosti lahko prizadet, če bi sodniki določenega sodišča odločali o škodi, ki naj bi jo stranki povzročilo isto sodišče v drugi sodni zadevi.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Tožeča stranka je pri Okrožnem sodišču v Ljubljani zoper toženo stranko vložila tožbo za plačilo premoženjske škode, ki naj bi ji nastala zaradi kršitve pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja. Škodo naj bi ji s protipravnim ravnanjem povzročilo Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani.

2. Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani je podalo predlog za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča. V zadevi, na katero se nanaša vložena tožba, so namreč sodile tri sodnice gospodarskega oddelka Okrožnega sodišča v Ljubljani, kar bi pri odločanju o vtoževani škodi lahko strankam in javnosti vzbudilo dvom v nepristranskost tega sodišča.

3. Predlog je utemeljen.

4. Po 67. členu Zakona o pravdnem postopku lahko Vrhovno sodišče na predlog stranke ali pristojnega sodišča določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, da postopa v zadevi, če je očitno, da se bo tako lažje opravil postopek, ali če so za to podani drugi tehtni razlogi.

5. Tak tehten razlog predstavlja tudi zahteva po zagotovitvi objektivne nepristranskosti sodišča. Po ustaljeni sodni praksi bi bil namreč videz nepristranskosti lahko prizadet, če bi sodniki določenega sodišča odločali o škodi, ki naj bi jo stranki povzročilo isto sodišče v drugi sodni zadevi.(1)

6. Vrhovno sodišče je zato odločilo, da se za odločanje v tej zadevi določi Okrožno sodišče v Kopru.

---.---

Op. št. (1): Enako sklepa VS RS III R 26/2013 z dne 13. 9. 2013 in III R 12/2015 z dne 5. 5. 2015.