Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep I R 103/2025 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2025:I.R.103.2025 AI generated

Appeal dismissed: grounds for recusal do not automatically justify transfer of jurisdiction under Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Case Number VSRS Sklep I R 103/2025
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the appellant's request to transfer the case to a different court. The appellant argued that the judge's recusal was a serious violation requiring a transfer to a neutral court, but the court found no such weighty reasons under Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act. Since the grounds for recusal were already rejected and did not inherently create a conflict of interest necessitating a change of venue, the transfer request was invalid.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act; grounds for recusal of a specific judge do not constitute weighty reasons for transferring jurisdiction under Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Keywords

AI generated
transfer of jurisdiction recusal of judge neutral court Civil Procedure Act weighty reasons conflict of interest procedural transfer

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VSRS Sklep I R 102/2025
Request for transfer of jurisdiction based on judge recusal is dismissed as grounds are insufficient.
VSL sklep II Cpg 1191/99
Appeal allowed: territorial jurisdiction for provisional attachment of negotiable instrument depends on its physical location.
Sklep III R 22/2007
Supreme Court rules that the District Court in Jesenice has jurisdiction over enforcement proceedings based on the debtor's seat in Kranjska Gora.
VSK sklep Cpg 571/99
Appeal dismissed; district court has jurisdiction over debt actions under 2 million SIT outside bankruptcy proceedings.
Sklep I R 89/2008
Supreme Court dismisses request to change court as vague bias claim lacks concrete facts under ZPP Art. 67.

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

Predlog se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Razlogi, s katerimi stranka uveljavlja izločitev konkretnega sodnika, po ustaljeni sodni praksi niso hkrati tudi razlog za prenos pristojnosti po 67. členu ZPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Tožena stranka je v pravdni zadevi pred Okrajnim sodiščem v Piranu podala obširno vlogo, v katerem v prvi vrsti predlaga izločitev sodnice Samante Kravanja. Ob tem pa zaradi "resnosti kršitve" nujno zahteva tudi prenos zadeve na nevtralno sodišče, pri čemer poda predlog za prenos na Okrajno sodišče na Vrhniki.

2. Predlog ni utemeljen.

3. Vrhovno sodišče lahko 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 zato drugi tehtni razlogi (67. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku; ZPP).

4. Obstoj drugih tehtnih razlogov v sodni praksi najbolj pogosto napolnjujejo okoliščine, ki bi utegnile vzbuditi dvom v nepristranskost sodišča. Razlogi, s katerimi stranka uveljavlja izločitev konkretnega sodnika, po ustaljeni sodni praksi niso hkrati tudi razlog za prenos pristojnosti po 67. členu ZPP. O predlogu za izločitev sodnice je bilo sicer tudi že odločeno in predlog zavrnjen.

5. Vrhovno sodišče je neutemeljen predlog za prenos pristojnosti zavrnilo.