Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep Cp 11/2006 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2006:CP.11.2006 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; judge's legal opinion during duty cannot justify recusal under ZPP Art. 70(6).

Case Number Sklep Cp 11/2006
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 dismissed an appeal against a decision rejecting a request for the recusal of a reporting judge. The intervening party argued that long-standing bias in the senate's previous rulings created an objective doubt under Article 70(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court held that a judge's personal legal stance taken while performing duties is never a valid ground for recusal, as it does not meet the subjective or objective tests for impartiality.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

6. točka 70. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku; A judge's personal legal opinion or stance adopted while performing judicial duties cannot serve as a ground for recusal, as it fails to establish either subjective bias or objective doubt regarding impartiality.

Keywords

AI generated
recusal of judge impartiality test subjective bias objective doubt judicial opinion Code of Civil Procedure ZPP Article 70

Cited Legislation

AI generated
6. točka 70. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
AI generated
Sklep Cp 5/2008
Appeal dismissed; procedural arguments regarding prior trial violations are inadmissible in recusal proceedings.
Sklep Cp 3/2011
Appeal dismissed: Past collegial service and shared origin do not create reasonable doubt of impartiality.
Sklep I R 2/2006
Supreme Court dismisses request to transfer case due to abuse of right and procedural obstruction.
VSL Sklep II Kp 15587/2019
Appeal dismissed; judge who led preparatory proceedings may decide appeal if only educational measure proposed, not criminal penalty.
Sklep Cp 3/2008
Appeal dismissed; higher court judge's recusal request rejected as she wouldn't decide the case.

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

Pritožba se zavrne in potrdi sklep prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Že zaradi narave sodnega odločanja, v nobenem primeru ne more biti odklonitveni razlog sodnikovo pravno stališče, zavzeto pri opravljanju sodne funkcije.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Predsednik višjega sodišča je s sklepom zavrnil zahtevo stranskega intervenienta na strani tožeče stranke za izločitev višjih sodnikov ...

Stranski intervenient v pritožbi proti navedenemu sklepu poudarja, da je bila zahteva za izločitev podana v skladu s 6. točko 70. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku - ZPP "na podlagi okoliščin, ki utemeljujejo dvom o nepristranskosti sodnika poročevalca ...". Pritožnikovo stališče je, da je močan dvom v nepristranskost razviden iz "dolgoletne pravde saj bo sodnik ... poročevalec pritožbenega senata že tretjič". Iz dosedanjih odločitev o pritožbah proti prvostopenjskim sodbam naj bi bilo razvidno, da je pritožbeni senat "vodil postopek pristransko v korist tožene stranke".

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Odklonitveni razlog iz 6. točke 70. člena ZPP (iudex suspectus) je podan, če se ugotovi, da ima odločujoči sodnik takšno osebno prepričanje, da bo o sporu odločil pristransko (subjektivni test) ali pa, da je na njegovi strani kakšna okoliščina, ki pri razumnemu človeku lahko ustvari dvom v sodnikovo nepristranskost (objektivni test). Stranski intervenient ni ponudil trditev in dokazov v zvezi s subjektivno pristranskostjo izločevanih sodnikov. Že zaradi narave sodnega odločanja pa v nobenem primeru ne more biti odklonitveni razlog sodnikovo pravno stališče, zavzeto pri opravljanju sodne funkcije.