Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL Sklep II Cp 2249/2017 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2017:II.CP.2249.2017 AI generated

Appeal against dismissal of judge recusal request rejected due to incomplete filing under ZPP. Appeal against dismissal of judge recusal request rejected due to incomplete filing under ZPP.

Case Number VSL Sklep II Cp 2249/2017
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The first-instance court rejected the plaintiff's request to recuse all judges of the District Court in Ljubljana, and the appeal against this decision was dismissed. The plaintiffs argued that their oral request on April 19, 2017, sufficiently expressed the intent to ensure impartiality, though they failed to name specific judges. The court ruled the appeal inadmissible because the request was incomplete under Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act, which does not allow for correction of such defects via appeal.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 365 of the Civil Procedure Act: A request for recusal of judges must be complete and specific; if incomplete, it is rejected and no special appeal exists against such rejection.

Keywords

AI generated
judge recusal incomplete request Civil Procedure Act inadmissible appeal District Court Ljubljana

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 365 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VSRS Sklep Cp 5/2019
Appeal dismissed; judge rejected removal request as vague and incomplete under ZPP rules.
VSL Sklep I Cpg 662/2021
Appeal court vacates first instance judgment on corporate transaction nullity while dismissing judge recusal request.
VSL sklep II Cp 2115/99
Appeal allowed; court found jurisdiction objection timely filed after enforcement court's partial revocation. Jurisdiction objection must be raised in civil proceedings initiated post-enforcement ruling. Jurisdiction objection must be raised in civil proceedings initiated after the enforcement court's partial revocation. Jurisdiction objection must be raised in civil proceedings initiated after the enforcement court's partial revocation.
Sklep I R 3/97
Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction request, ruling bias concerns require individual judge recusal, not court delegation.
VSL sklep I Cp 652/2000
Appeal allowed; court held jurisdiction depends on procedural stage, not physical file location.

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

Pritožba se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Pritožba zoper sklep o zavrženju zahteve za izločitev sodnikov ni dovoljena.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Z izpodbijanim sklepom je sodišče prve stopnje zavrglo predlog tožeče stranke z dne 19. 4. 2017 za izločitev vseh sodnikov Okrožnega sodišča v Ljubljani.

2. Zoper sklep se pritožujeta tožnika. Predlagata, naj pritožbeno sodišče sklep odpravi. Tožnika sta na naroku dne 19. 4. 2017 predlagala, da se iz sojenja izloči Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani in se sojenje prenese na drugo krajevno pristojno sodišče. Na naroku je bilo tožniku pojasnjeno, da ni mogoča izločitev sodišča, temveč le prenos sojenja na drugo krajevno pristojno sodišče, mogoča pa je izločitev posameznega sodnika, vendar pa to ni bil namen predlagateljev. Njun namen je bil zagotovitev pogojev za nepristransko in neodvisno uresničevanje ustavne vloge sodnika. Tožnika sta zmotno menila, da sta dovolj jasno izrazila, da sklep sodišča, da predlog za prenos pristojnosti posreduje v odločitev Vrhovnemu sodišču, zadostuje.

3. Pritožba ni dovoljena.

4. Iz obrazložitve izpodbijanega sklepa izhaja, da sta tožnika dne 19. 4. 2017 podala nepopoln predlog za izločitev sodnikov, ker nista poimensko navedla sodnikov, ki naj se jih izloči (tretji odstavek 72. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku - v nadaljevanju ZPP). Ker se za zahtevo za izločitev ne uporabljajo določbe 108. člena ZPP o vračanju nerazumljivih in nepopolnih vlog v popravo oziroma dopolnitev (peti odstavek 72. člena ZPP), je sodišče prve stopnje njun predlog na podlagi šestega odstavka 72. člena ZPP zavrglo kot nepopoln. Zoper takšno odločitev v skladu z določbo sedmega odstavka 72. člena ZPP ni posebne pritožbe.

5. Ker pritožba tožnikov zoper izpodbijani sklep ni dovoljena, jo je pritožbeno sodišče zavrglo (1. točka 365. člena ZPP).