Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 175/2007 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2007:I.R.175.2007 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses request to transfer enforcement jurisdiction due to debtor's potential relocation.

Case Number Sklep I R 175/2007
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 debtor's request to transfer enforcement jurisdiction from the local court in Radovljica to the court in Ljubljana. The debtor argued that a potential move due to difficult living conditions would make the Ljubljana court more economical, but the court found this insufficient. The court ruled that jurisdictional transfer is an exceptional measure and mere possibility of relocation does not justify it.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 15 of the Enforcement and Security Act: Jurisdictional transfer in enforcement proceedings is permitted only in exceptional cases where the debtor's potential relocation does not constitute a valid ground.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement jurisdiction jurisdictional transfer debtor relocation exceptional circumstances civil procedure act enforcement and security act local court competence

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 15 of the Enforcement and Security Act
AI generated
VSRS Sklep I R 200/2025
Jurisdiction in enforcement proceedings is determined immediately upon receipt of the request based on creditor's claims, not registry data.
Sklep III R 4/2006
Supreme Court rules local jurisdiction for enforcement via certified document follows the proposed execution subject's location.
VSL sklep III Cp 297/2004
Appeal dismissed; court upheld enforcement order despite erroneous citation of interest calculation law.
VSL sklep II Cpg 865/2000
Court dismisses objection to enforcement against restructured company, ruling it remains same legal entity.
VSL sklep III Cp 1848/99
Appeal dismissed; court upheld seizure stop due to proper notice via lawyer and client's absence. Client failed to prove improper service.

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]

Krajevna pristojnost izvršilnega sodišča načeloma predstavlja izključno pristojnost in je že zato delegacija v izvršilnem postopku mogoča le v izjemnih primerih. Zgolj možnost, da se bo dolžnica preselila, zato ne predstavlja razloga za delegacijo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Upnik je proti dolžnici predlagal izvršbo na podlagi izvršilnega naslova z rubežem njenih premičnin na naslovu ..., Bled, Okrajno sodišče v Radovljici pa je izdalo sklep o izvršbi.

2. Dolžnica je v ugovoru proti sklepu o izvršbi predlagala, "da se prenese krajevno pristojnost na Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani", ker se bo zaradi težkih življenjskih pogojev in velike oddaljenosti od Ljubljane njeno začasno bivališče v kratkem zopet spremenilo in bi bilo zato ekonomično, da izvršilni postopek poteka pri ljubljanskem sodišču.

3. Predlog ni utemeljen.

4. Vrhovno sodišče lahko na predlog stranke določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, da postopa v zadevi, če je očitno, da se bo tako lažje opravil postopek, ali če so za to drugi tehtni razlogi(1). Krajevna pristojnost izvršilnega sodišča načeloma predstavlja izključno pristojnost in je že zato delegacija v izvršilnem postopku mogoča le v izjemnih primerih. Zgolj možnost, da se bo dolžnica preselila, zato ne predstavlja razloga za delegacijo in je zato Vrhovno sodišče predlog zavrnilo.

Op. št. (1): Primerjaj določbe 67. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku - ZPP in 15. člena Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju - ZIZ.