Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 67/2006 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2006:I.R.67.2006 AI generated

Supreme Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction request based solely on former marital ties between parties.

Case Number Sklep I R 67/2006
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 jurisdiction to the District Court in A. The plaintiff argued that the dissolution of their marriage with a former employee of that court should restore general territorial jurisdiction there. The court held that a past marital relationship is not a sufficient reason for transfer, especially given the fifteen-year duration of the ongoing proceedings.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act; A former marital relationship between parties does not constitute a significant reason for transferring jurisdiction when the current court is already the appropriate forum for a long-standing proceeding.

Keywords

AI generated
jurisdiction transfer territorial competence marital dissolution civil procedure supreme court ruling

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
Sklep I Pr 6/93
Appeal court rejects transfer of jurisdiction request based on mere presence of defendant's municipality at court seat.
Sklep I R 93/2007
Slovenian Supreme Court allows transfer of case to another court due to judge's relationship with a party.
VSRS Sklep I R 192/2023
Supreme Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction due to alleged bias against a specific judge, not the court itself.
Sklep I R 53/2005
Appeal dismissed: Family ties to retired judge do not prove bias or lack of impartiality.
VSRS sklep I R 36/2016
Supreme Court transfers jurisdiction to a different court due to the mother's employment there creating impartiality doubts.

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

Predlogu se ne ugodi.

[JEDRO]

Dejstvo, da je prišlo pred nekaj leti do razveze zakonske zveze med tožnikom in uslužbenko Okrajnega sodišča A. (ki bi bilo sicer splošno krajevno pristojno za sojenje v tej zadevi), nikakor ne more biti tehten razlog za prenos pristojnosti nazaj na to sodišče.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožnik predlaga prenos krajevne pristojnosti na Okrajno sodišče A., predlog pa utemeljuje s trditvijo, da zaradi razveze ni več poročen zvezi z B. B., uslužbenko Okrajnega sodišča A. To sodišče pa bi bilo po pravilih o splošni krajevni pristojnosti pristojno za odločanje v tem sporu. Leta 1992 je bila znotraj takratnega Temeljnega sodišča v Novem mestu zadeva prenešena z Enote v A. na Enoto v B. prav zaradi zakonske zveze med tožnikom in B. B.

Predlog ni utemeljen.

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 laže opravil postopek, ali če so za to drugi tehtni razlogi (67. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku - 26/99 in nasl.). Vendar dejstvo, da je prišlo pred nekaj leti do razveze zakonske zveze med tožnikom in uslužbenko Okrajnega sodišča v A.(ki bi bilo sicer splošno krajevno pristojno za sojenje v tej zadevi), nikakor ne more biti tehten razlog za prenos pristojnosti. Po ekscesno dolgem, petnajst let trajajočem postopku (ki v vsem tem času še ni doživel epiloga) bi bilo nesmiselno in nesmotrno pristojnost prenesti na drugo (sosednje) sodišče. Vrhovno sodišče zato predlogu za prenos pristojnosti ni ugodilo.