Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I Pr 31/94 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1994:I.PR.31.94 AI generated

Inheritance case remanded to another court due to a judge being a beneficiary.

Case Number Sklep I Pr 31/94
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 designated the Basic Court in Maribor as the competent court for a new inheritance proceeding. The Basic Court had requested a transfer because one of the heirs was a judge sitting on that very court. The court ruled that the judge's dual role as a beneficiary and a judge constituted a significant reason for the transfer under the relevant inheritance law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 68 of the Inheritance Act; A judge serving as a beneficiary in an inheritance case constitutes a significant reason for designating a different competent court to ensure impartiality.

Keywords

AI generated
inheritance proceeding court jurisdiction judge impartiality beneficiary status transfer of case significant reason Slovenian law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 68 of the Inheritance Act
AI generated
Sklep I R 105/2003
Slovenia Supreme Court dismisses transfer of jurisdiction request based solely on party distrust in court competence.
VSL sklep I Cp 3612/2012
Appeal court vacates probate suspension due to prior final judicial settlement resolving the disputed property rights.
Sklep I R 6/95
Supreme Court transfers case to Ptuj District Court due to personal familiarity of parties with all judges.
VSRS Sklep I R 168/2019
Supreme Court assigns district court jurisdiction when no estate exists in Slovenia under inheritance law.
VSRS Sklep I R 169/2018
Supreme Court transfers joint property division case to Celje court due to employee's employment at original court creating appearance of bias.

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 zapuščinski zadevi se določi Temeljno sodišče v Mariboru.

[JEDRO]

Funkcija sodnika, ki jo opravlja ena od dedinj pokojne upravičenke na sodišču, ki je pristojno za reševanje te zadeve, predstavlja tehten razlog za postopanje po navedeni določbi ZPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Pri Temeljnem sodišču v ... kot krajevno pristojnem sodišču teče nov zapuščinski postopek glede premoženja, ki je bilo vrnjeno z odločbo o denacionalizaciji Občinskega sekretariata za družbenoekonomski razvoj občine ... z dne 25.5.1993. Temeljno sodišče v ... je predlagalo Vrhovnemu sodišču Republike Slovenije, da naj na podlagi 68. člena ZPP za sojenje v tej zadevi določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, ker je ena izmed dedinj navedenega premoženja tamkajšnja sodnica.

Predlog je utemeljen.

Vrhovno sodišče ugotavlja, da je v konkretnem primeru podan razlog iz 68. člena ZPP. Po tem določilu Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije na predlog stranke ali pristojnega sodišča določi, da naj postopa v posamezni zadevi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče z njegovega območja, če za to obstajajo tehtni razlogi. Funkcija sodnika, ki jo opravlja ena od dedinj pokojne upravičenke na sodišču, ki je pristojno za reševanje te zadeve, predstavlja tehten razlog za postopanje po navedeni določbi ZPP. Vrhovno sodišče je zato predlogu ugodilo.