Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 141/2007 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2007:I.R.141.2007 AI generated

Appeal dismissed: A judge's spouse working at the same court does not justify transfer of jurisdiction.

Case Number Sklep I R 141/2007
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The plaintiff requested a transfer of jurisdiction due to the defendant's wife's employment at the same court. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that mere employment does not automatically create a conflict of interest. The court clarified that doubts about impartiality require recusal proceedings, and only a complete inability to proceed justifies transfer, not mere convenience.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o sodiščih; Zakon o sodniški službi: The employment of a judge's spouse at the same court does not constitute grounds for transferring jurisdiction under the principle of convenience, as it does not inherently prove a lack of impartiality.

Keywords

AI generated
transfer of jurisdiction conflict of interest judge's spouse impartiality delegation of jurisdiction recusal proceedings principle of convenience

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Zakon o sodiščih
Zakon o sodniški službi
AI generated
Sklep I R 34/2013
Supreme Court delegates jurisdiction due to employee of debtor at court affecting public perception of impartiality.
VSRS Sklep I R 72/2025
Supreme Court transfers case to Celje District Court due to defendant's familial ties to judges in Ljubljana.
VSRS Sklep I R 111/2017
Appeal court rejects transfer of jurisdiction based on judge's wife's employment at a different court.
VSRS Sklep I R 141/2018
Supreme Court transfers civil case jurisdiction due to potential bias from a judge handling criminal cases at the same court.
Sklep I R 10/2013
Supreme Court dismisses third identical jurisdiction transfer request as abuse of process under ZPP Art. 11.

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 za prenos pristojnosti se ne ugodi.

[JEDRO]

Dejstvo, da je toženčeva žena zaposlena na Okrajnem sodišču v A. ter da je neposredno povezana s sodnico, ki odloča v tej zadevi, še ni razlog za prenos pristojnosti.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožnica je pri Okrajnem sodišču v A. vložila tožbo zaradi motenja posesti zoper Dimitrija Likarja, nato pa predlagala prenos pristojnosti iz razlogov smotrnosti. Navaja, da je toženčeva žena zaposlena na Okrajnem sodišču v Kopru (menda kot zapisnikarica).

Predlog ni utemeljen.

Dejstvo, da je toženčeva žena zaposlena na Okrajnem sodišču v A. ter da je neposredno povezana s sodnico, ki odloča v tej zadevi, še ni razlog za prenos pristojnosti. Dvom o sodnikovi nepristranskosti je namreč lahko razlog za izločitev, in šele, če je izločeno tolikšno število sodnikov, da sodišče ne more postopati, bodo izpolnjeni pogoji za nujno delegacijo. Ni pa to razlog za delegacijo iz razlogov smotrnosti. Vrhovno sodišče je zato predlog za prenos pristojnosti zavrnilo.