Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 19/2006 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2006:I.R.128.2010 AI generated

Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses request to change court venue based on general dissatisfaction with local proceedings.

Case Number Sklep I R 19/2006
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 plaintiff's request to transfer the case to a different court of first instance and appeal. The plaintiff argued that proceedings in Maribor courts were not conducted normally and lacked impartiality, citing personal history since 1960. The court held that general dissatisfaction does not constitute a significant reason under Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that proceedings would be more easily conducted elsewhere.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act; A party's general dissatisfaction with local court proceedings does not constitute a significant reason for changing the court of jurisdiction unless it is evident that the proceedings would be conducted more easily elsewhere.

Keywords

AI generated
civil procedure court jurisdiction venue change significant reason impartiality economic efficiency procedural fairness

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act (ZPP)
AI generated
Sklep I R 43/2009
Slovenia Supreme Court dismisses request for transfer of jurisdiction based on perceived unfairness.
VSRS Sklep I R 183/2022
Supreme Court dismisses transfer of jurisdiction due to witness being a judge at the same court.
Sklep I R 24/2005
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against rejection of jurisdiction transfer request as inadmissible procedural step.
Sklep VIII R 8/2003
Supreme Court transfers labor case to Celje because Maribor court judge is a juror, raising impartiality doubts.
Sklep I R 59/2009
Supreme Court dismisses fourth jurisdiction transfer request as abuse of process exceeding legal limits.

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]

Predlagateljevo načelno nezadovoljstvo s sojenjem določenih sodišč ne predstavlja "drugega tehtnega razloga" v smislu 67. člena ZPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožnik je vložil pritožbo proti sodbi Okrožnega sodišča v Mariboru z dne 25.10.2005, opr. št. II P 664/2004 in hkrati predlagal, da vrhovno sodišče določi namesto Višjega sodišča v Mariboru drugo višje sodišče za odločanje v pritožbenem postopku in namesto Okrožnega sodišča v Mariboru na prvi stopnji drugo okrožno sodišče izven območja Višjega sodišča v Mariboru. Predlagateljevo stališče je, da je treba določiti drugi stvarno pristojni sodišči zato, ker na mariborskih sodiščih "v tožnikovih zadevah postopki ne tečejo normalno". Postopek naj bi se laže izvedel izven območja in Višjega sodišča v Mariboru, na katerem tožnik deluje že od leta 1960. Predlagatelj ima občutek, da mu ni sodilo nepristransko sodišče; sojenje ni bilo pošteno, "ne procesno in ne materialno".

Predlog ni utemeljen.

Vrhovno sodišče lahko na predlog stranke določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, da postopa v zadevi, če je očitno, da se bo tako laže opravil postopek, ali če so za to drugi tehtni razlogi (67. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku - ZPP). Za odgovor na vprašanje ali bi se pri drugem sodišču laže opravil postopek, je treba upoštevati načelo ekonomičnosti, predlagatelj pa s tega vidika ni postavil relevantnih trditev. Predlagateljevo načelno nezadovoljstvo s sojenjem mariborskih sodišč pa ne predstavlja "drugega tehtnega razloga" v smislu 67. člena ZPP.