Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I Pr 28/93 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1993:I.PR.28.93 AI generated

Court transfers jurisdiction to another court due to a judge's involvement raising impartiality doubts.

Case Number Sklep I Pr 28/93
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 ordered the transfer of jurisdiction from the Basic Court to another competent court. The plaintiff, a judge at the Basic Court, sued to remove an access road, while the defendant argued the Basic Court should retain the case. The court ruled that the plaintiff's position as a judge at the venue created a valid doubt regarding impartiality, necessitating the transfer under Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act; A court must transfer jurisdiction to another competent court when a party's status at that venue creates a clear doubt about the impartiality of the proceedings.

Keywords

AI generated
judicial impartiality transfer of jurisdiction Civil Procedure Act judge as party doubt of neutrality competent court procedural transfer

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
Sodba II Ips 878/2007
Supreme Court dismisses appeal claiming procedural violation regarding evidence of land use rights. The court rejects the claim that lower courts failed to verify facts. The appeal is rejected because the alleged evidence discrepancy does not exist. The court upholds the lower courts' decision on land removal and path usage. The appeal is dismissed due to lack of procedural violation. The court rejects the claim of evidence discrepancy. The appeal is dismissed because the lower courts acted correctly. The court rejects the appeal on procedural grounds. The court dismisses the appeal regarding land rights. The court rejects the appeal on procedural grounds.
Sklep I R 89/2006
Supreme Court transfers case to another district court to avoid bias when plaintiff is a judge.
VSRS sklep I R 98/2014
Supreme Court delegates jurisdiction to another court due to a judge being a party's spouse.
Sklep I R 104/2005
Supreme Court transfers divorce case to another court due to employee defendant and family issues.
VSRS Sklep I R 59/2026
Slovenian Supreme Court transfers jurisdiction due to plaintiff's employment at the original court threatening impartiality.

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 v tej zadevi se določi Temeljno sodišče ...

[JEDRO]

Določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča iz razlogov 68. člena ZPP. Tožnik je sodnik sodišča, ki bi bilo stvarno in krajevno pristojno za izvedbo pravdnega postopka. Obstoji torej okoliščina, ki lahko vzbudi dvom o nepristranosti odločanja pri tem sodišču.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožniki so pri Temeljnem sodišču v ..., enoti v ..., vložili proti toženi stranki tožbo na ukinitev in odstranitev dovozne poti ter vzpostavitev v prejšnje stanje.

Predlog za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča je podalo Temeljno sodišče v ... z utemeljitvijo, da je eden od tožnikov sodnik Temeljnega sodišča v ..., enote v ...

Predlog je utemeljen.

Po določbi 68. člena ZPP (Uradni list SFRJ 4/77-27/90 v zvezi s 1. odstavkom 4. člena ustavnega zakona za izvedbo temeljne ustavne listine o samostojnosti in neodvisnosti Republike Slovenije - Uradni list RS št. 1/91-I) je mogoče opraviti prenos pristojnosti s stvarno in krajevno pristojnega sodišča na drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, če je očitno, da se bo tako lažje izvedel postopek, ali če so za to drugi tehtni razlogi. Iz spisa sledi, da je tožnik sodnik enote, ki bi bilo stvarno in krajevno pristojno za izvedbo pravdnega postopka. Obstoji torej okoliščina, ki lahko vzbudi dvom o nepristranosti odločanja pri tem sodišču. To pa je tehten razlog, da to sodišče ne more voditi pravdnega postopka in odločati o tožbenem zahtevku. Predlogu za delegacijo je bilo zato treba ugoditi.