Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I Pr 36/94 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1994:I.PR.36.94 AI generated

Court dismisses request for change of court because internal reassignment of cases by the president avoids conflict of interest.

Case Number Sklep I Pr 36/94
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The plaintiff requested a change of court to avoid a conflict of interest with one of the defendants, who was an employee of the Basic Court. The Supreme Court rejected this proposal, ruling that the court president has the authority to internally reassign cases to different units. Consequently, the court determined that no other competent court needed to be designated under Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act; The court president may internally reassign cases to different units to resolve internal conflicts of interest, rendering a request for a change of competent court inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
change of court conflict of interest internal reassignment court president authority competent court designation civil procedure act judicial organization

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
Sklep I R 62/97
Supreme Court transfers case to another court because the defendant is a judge at the original court.
VSRS sklep I R 146/2015
Supreme Court transfers case to Maribor court due to plaintiff's employment at defendant court ensuring impartiality.
Sklep I Pr 45/93
Court transfers case to another court because plaintiff is mother of the presiding judge.
Sklep I R 35/96
Supreme Court transfers possession disturbance case to another court due to plaintiff's judicial employment conflict.
Sklep I R 8/2006
Employment at the same court does not automatically justify transfer of jurisdiction; recusal applies instead.

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 za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča se kot neutemeljen zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Glede na notranjo organizacijo Temeljnega sodišča ima predsednik sodišča v okviru svojih pooblastil možnost, da konkretno zadevo dodeli v obravnavanje drugi enoti sodišča in s tem odpravi ovire, da se o zadevi obravnava na enoti sodišča, kjer je zaposlena druga toženka.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožeča stranka je vložila pri Temeljnem sodišču v ..., enoti v ... proti toženim strankam tožbo, s katero uveljavlja plačilo odškodnine. V tožbi je med drugim navedla, da je druga tožena stranka uslužbenka Temeljnega sodišča v ..., enote v ... Zato je predlagala, da se za odločitev v tej pravdni zadevi določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče.

Predlog ni utemeljen.

Glede na notranjo organizacijo Temeljnega sodišča v ima predsednik sodišča v okviru svojih pooblastil možnost, da konkretno zadevo dodeli v obravnavanje drugi enoti sodišča in s tem odpravi ovire, da se o zadevi obravnava na enoti sodišča, kjer je zaposlena druga toženka. Zato Vrhovno sodišče za odločanje v tej zadevi ni določilo drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča v smislu 68. čl. ZPP.