Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep I R 107/2018 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2018:I.R.107.2018 AI generated

Supreme Court transfers jurisdiction to Ptuj District Court to ensure objective impartiality of the Maribor court.

Case Number VSRS Sklep I R 107/2018
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 Maribor District Court to the Ptuj District Court upon the applicant's request. The applicant argued that the Maribor court, named as the defendant, could not impartially decide on its own jurisdiction. The court ruled that established case law requires the named defendant court to decide on its own jurisdiction to ensure objective impartiality.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

67. člen ZPP; Po ustaljeni sodni praksi je institut delegacije pristojnosti namenjen tudi varstvu objektivne nepristranskosti, kar pomeni, da mora sodišče, kot tožena stranka navedeno v predlagalnem aktu, o tem predlagalnem aktu odločiti.

Keywords

AI generated
delegation of jurisdiction objective impartiality ZPP article 67 transfer of jurisdiction Maribor District Court Ptuj District Court constitutional right to fair trial

Cited Legislation

AI generated
67. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP)
AI generated
VSC Sklep I Cp 46/2024
Appeal dismissed; court ruled property access dispute is a civil matter, not an administrative one.
VSL Sklep II Cp 2402/2019
Court dismisses appeal, ruling that claiming co-ownership usage fees does not define usage method.
VSL sklep I Cp 523/2015
Appeal court dismisses tenant's claim and allows landlord's appeal regarding civil vs. non-contentious procedure. The tenant's right to a suitable dwelling is a matter for civil court, not non-contentious proceedings. The court ruled that the first-instance court erred by applying non-contentious rules to a dispute over the existence of the tenant's right. The appeal court held that the tenant's claim for a suitable dwelling must be adjudicated in civil proceedings, not non-contentious ones. The tenant's appeal was dismissed as inadmissible because it did not challenge the substantive decision but rather the procedural classification of the claim. The landlord's appeal was allowed because the first-instance court incorrectly applied non-contentious procedure rules to a civil matter. The court decided that the tenant's right to a suitable dwelling under the Housing Act is a substantive right to be determined in civil court, not a procedural matter for non-contentious proceedings. The appeal court dismissed the tenant's appeal as inadmissible since it did not challenge the substantive decision but rather the procedural classification of the claim. The court allowed the landlord's appeal because the first-instance court incorrectly applied non-contentious procedure rules to a civil matter. The court decided that the tenant's right to a suitable dwelling under the Housing Act is a substantive right to be determined in civil court, not a procedural matter for non-contentious proceedings. The appeal court dismissed the tenant's appeal as inadmissible since it did not challenge the substantive decision but rather the procedural classification of the claim. The court allowed the landlord's appeal because the first-instance court incorrectly applied non-contentious procedure rules to a civil matter. The court decided that the tenant's right to a suitable dwelling under the Housing Act is a substantive right to be determined in civil court, not a procedural matter for non-contentious proceedings.
VSC Sklep II Ip 267/2020
Appeal dismissed; debtor lacks interest to challenge enforcement suspension for undisputed payment.
VSK sklep Cp 234/93
Civil court dismissed appeal; contract with economic organization, not state organ, falls under civil procedure not expropriation.

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 Okrajno sodišče na Ptuju.

[JEDRO]

Po ustaljeni sodni praksi je institut delegacije pristojnosti namenjen tudi varstvu objektivne nepristranskosti. Ker je v predlagalnem aktu kot tožena stranka navedeno Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru, to pa bi moralo o tem predlagalnem aktu tudi odločiti, so podani pogoji za prenos pristojnosti po 67. členu ZPP. Zato je Vrhovno sodišče določilo drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Predlagatelj je na Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru vložil predlagalni akt, ki ga je naslovil kot tožbo. Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru je zadevo vpisalo pod število R 188/2018.

2. Nato je Vrhovnemu sodišču poslalo predlog za prenos krajevne pristojnosti zaradi zagotavljanja ustavne pravice do nepristranskega sojenja. Kot tožena stranka je v predlagalnem aktu namreč navedeno Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru.

3. Predlog je utemeljen.

4. Vrhovno sodišče lahko na predlog stranke ali pristojnega sodišča določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, da postopa v zadevi, če je očitno, da se bo tako lažje opravil postopek, ali če so za to drugi tehtni razlogi (67. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku - v nadaljevanju ZPP).

5. Po ustaljeni sodni praksi je institut delegacije pristojnosti namenjen tudi varstvu objektivne nepristranskosti. Ker je v predlagalnem aktu kot tožena stranka navedeno Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru, to pa bi moralo o tem predlagalnem aktu tudi odločiti, so podani pogoji za prenos pristojnosti po 67. členu ZPP. Zato je Vrhovno sodišče določilo drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče.