Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 79/2011 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2011:I.R.79.2011 AI generated

Supreme Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction to another competent court due to lack of economic efficiency grounds.

Case Number Sklep I R 79/2011
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 dismissed the defendant's request to transfer the case from the Ljubljana District Court to the Slovenj Gradec District Court. The defendant argued that holding the proceedings in Slovenj Gradec would reduce costs for witnesses and parties, as witnesses were based there and the defendant resided locally. The court found no clear evidence that the proceedings would be significantly easier conducted in the other jurisdiction.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act; The Supreme Court may transfer jurisdiction to another competent court only if it is obvious that the proceedings would be conducted more easily, and such a transfer requires a clear demonstration of economic efficiency.

Keywords

AI generated
transfer of jurisdiction economic efficiency principle competent court civil procedure law procedural economy

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VSL sklep I Cp 2848/2013
Appeal allowed; defendant's residence is not the exclusive venue for non-fatal tort claims under ZPP.
Sklep III Ips 43/2007
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for late appeal due to lawyer error and lack of serious misconduct.
Sklep II Ips 21/97
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses appeal, ruling jurisdiction based on damage location, not plaintiff's residence, in international tort cases.
VSRS Sklep I R 105/2022
Supreme Court transfers divorce case jurisdiction due to mother's employment at local court creating appearance of bias.
Sklep I R 118/2011
Supreme Court transfers case to Krško District Court due to apparent bias against Novice District Court judges.

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]

Ni razlogov za prenos krajevne pristojnosti na drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Med pravdnima strankama je v teku pravdni postopek zaradi plačila 1.564,54 EUR. Toženka je v pripravljalni vlogi z dne 11. 5. 2011 ugovarjala krajevno pristojnost Okrajnega sodišča v Ljubljani in hkrati predlagala prenos krajevne pristojnosti na drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče. Meni, da bi bilo to v skladu z načelom ekonomičnosti postopka, saj bi se, če bi postopek tekel pred Okrajnim sodiščem v Slovenj Gradcu, zmanjšali stroški prič in strank, ker ne bi bilo treba opraviti voženj v Ljubljano. Priče, ki jih predlaga tožeča stranka, so zaposlene na njeni izpostavi v Slovenj Gradcu. Tudi toženka dejansko prebiva na območju Okrajnega sodišča v Slovenj Gradcu oziroma je njena obveznost nastala na tem območju.

2. Tožeča stranka prenosu krajevne pristojnosti nasprotuje.

3. Predlog ni utemeljen.

4. Temelj prenosa krajevne pristojnosti po 67. členu Zakona o pravdnem postopku je načelo ekonomičnosti. Vrhovno sodišče lahko določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, da postopa v zadevi, če je očitno, da se bo tako lažje opravil postopek. Upoštevajoč predlagane dokaze (zlasti naslov stalnega prebivališča toženke in naslov, preko katerega naj se vabijo s strani tožeče stranke predlagane priče), Vrhovno sodišče ocenjuje, da ni razlogov za prenos krajevne pristojnosti na drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče.