Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I Pr 23/93 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1993:I.PR.23.93 AI generated

Supreme Court assigns appeal to another competent court because plaintiffs are judges of the proposed court.

Case Number Sklep I Pr 23/93
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia assigned the appeal to a different competent court in Celju instead of the High Court in Ljubljana. The plaintiffs were judges of the High Court in Ljubljana, which had originally rejected the plaintiff's claim. The court ruled that the plaintiffs' status as judges of the proposed appellate court constituted a significant reason to transfer jurisdiction.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

68. člen ZPP; When plaintiffs are judges of the proposed appellate court, the Supreme Court may assign the appeal to another competent court to ensure fairer proceedings.

Keywords

AI generated
judicial bias transfer of jurisdiction appeal assignment ZPP article 68 conflict of interest competent court plaintiff status

Cited Legislation

AI generated
68. člen ZPP
AI generated
VSL sklep I Cp 1109/2013
Appeal dismissed; court upheld dismissal of lawsuit due to unpaid court fees after prior requests were rejected.
VDSS sklep Pdp 891/2013
Appeal allowed; first-instance court wrongly dismissed suit due to late court fee payment. Plaintiff paid fee on time.
VDSS Sklep Pdp 169/2022
Appeal partially allowed; dismissal of claim due to missing tax ID deemed disproportionate infringement of right to court protection.
VSL sklep I Cpg 1000/2001
Appeal dismissed; withdrawal of enforcement claim is irrevocable and declaratory, ending proceedings. Withdrawal of enforcement claim is irrevocable and declaratory, ending proceedings.
VDS sklep Pdp 757/2003
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff must pay defendant's costs after withdrawing claim without fulfilling request.

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 odločanje o pritožbi se določi Višje sodišče v Celju.

[JEDRO]

Okoliščina, da so toženci sodniki Višjega sodišča v Ljubljani, je tehten razlog za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča, ki naj odloči o pritožbi.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožnik je vložil tožbo pri Temeljnem sodišču v Ljubljani, enota v Ljubljani, vendar mu je bila tožba vrnjena v popravo. Sodišče prve stopnje je nato izdalo sklep, da se tožba štelje za umaknjeno. Zoper ta sklep se je tožnik pritožil. Višje sodišče v Ljubljani pa predlaga, da se določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče za odločitev o pritožbi, ker so toženci sodniki Višjega sodišča v Ljubljani.

Predlog je utemeljen.

Po določilu 68.člena ZPP lahko Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije kot najvišje redno sodišče v državi določi, naj postopa v posamezni zadevi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, če je očitno, da se bo tako lažje opravil postopek ali če so zato drugi tehtni razlogi. Okoliščina, da so toženci sodniki Višjega sodišča v Ljubljani, je tehten razlog za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča, ki naj odloči o pritožbi.