Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 5/2008 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2008:I.R.5.2008 AI generated

Court transfers case to another court when a party works there and the small court lacks sufficient independence.

Case Number Sklep I R 5/2008
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia transferred jurisdiction from the local court to another court because a party and a witness were employed there. The local court argued that both the defendant and the proposed witness worked for them, citing the relevant procedural law. The court agreed that while employment alone is not enough, the small size of this specific court created reasonable doubts about impartiality, necessitating the transfer.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Act on Civil Procedure; Article 2 of the Act on the Judiciary: Employment of a party or witness at a local court may justify transferring jurisdiction only if the court's small size creates reasonable doubts about its objective impartiality.

Keywords

AI generated
jurisdiction transfer impartiality doubts small court size party employment witness employment civil procedure law judicial independence

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 67 of the Act on Civil Procedure
Article 2 of the Act on the Judiciary
AI generated
VSRS Sklep I R 103/2016
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses request to delegate jurisdiction due to family ties of defendants to court clerk.
Sklep I R 135/2005
Supreme Court rejects delegation request due to procedural conclusion and principle of economic efficiency.
VSRS sklep I R 141/2015
Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction request based solely on judge bias claims under Slovenian Civil Procedure Code.
Sklep I R 30/2002
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses transfer request where client's relative is retired court employee.
VSRS Sklep I R 27/2022
Former judge's past role in small court triggers transfer of custody due to 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

Za sojenje v tej zadevi se določi Okrajno sodišče v B.

[JEDRO]

Dejstvo, da je ena od strank zaposlena pri krajevno pristojnem sodišču, lahko predstavlja tehten razlog za delegacijo pristojnosti - vendar samo, če so podane še druge okoliščine, ki to utemeljujejo (npr., da gre za sodišče z majhnim številom zaposlenih in zato s sorazmerno tesnejšo povezanostjo med njimi).

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Okrajno sodišče v A. predlaga prenos pristojnosti na podlagi 67. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (Uradni list RS, št. 26/99 in nasl.), ker sta tako toženec kot C. C., ki jo tožeča stranka predlaga kot pričo, zaposlena na tem sodišču - toženec kot zemljiškoknjižni referent, C. C. pa kot strokovna sodelavka.

Predlog je utemeljen.

Dejstvo, da je ena od strank zaposlena pri krajevno pristojnem sodišču, lahko predstavlja tehten razlog za delegacijo pristojnosti. Vendar le tedaj, če so podane še druge okoliščine, ki to utemeljujejo. Sodnik mora namreč vselej ravnati tako, da varuje nepristranskost in neodvisnost sojenja ter ugled sodniške službe (2. člen Zakona o sodniški službi - Uradni list RS, št. 19/94 in nasl.). Ker je v obravnavanem primeru krajevno pristojno sodišče manjše, z majhnim številom zaposlenih in zato s sorazmerno tesnejšo povezanostjo med zaposlenim osebjem, bi te okoliščine lahko vzbudile dvom v objektivno nepristranskost sodišča. Zato je vrhovno sodišče predlogu za delegacijo ugodilo in za sojenje določilo drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče.