Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I Pr 39/94 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1994:I.PR.39.94 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; mother's employment at court does not mandate transfer under ZPP Art. 68.

Case Number Sklep I Pr 39/94
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 appeal requesting a transfer of jurisdiction to a distant court. The appellant argued that the plaintiff's mother working as a clerk at the local court compromised impartiality. The court held that this circumstance does not constitute a significant reason for transferring jurisdiction under Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act, as the matter can be resolved by assigning the case to a different unit within the same court.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act; The employment of a party's representative at the court of jurisdiction does not constitute a significant reason for transferring jurisdiction, as the case may be handled by a different unit of the same court.

Keywords

AI generated
Civil Procedure Act jurisdiction transfer impartiality concern court clerk employment significant reason same court unit appeal dismissal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VSRS Sklep I R 23/2025
Supreme Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction due to law clerk's employment by opposing counsel.
VSRS Sklep I R 10/2025
Court rejects jurisdiction delegation request based on clerical staff's role and lack of close ties to judges.
Sklep I R 38/2011
Supreme Court allows transfer of case to another court when a party is employed there as a clerk.
VSRS Sklep I R 97/2021
Supreme Court transfers case to another district court due to perceived lack of judicial impartiality.
Sklep I R 94/2005
Appeal dismissed: Mother's judicial role does not objectively compromise court impartiality.

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, da se za postopanje v tej zadevi določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Zatrjevane okoliščine, da je tožnikova mati zaposlena pri sodišču v ..., ne pomeni tehtnega razloga za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča po 68. čl. ZPP. Zadevo je mogoče urediti z dodelitvijo drugi enoti istega sodišča.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Toženec navaja v odgovoru na tožbo, da je zakonita zastopnica mladoletnega tožnika zaposlena na sodišču v ... kot zapisnikarica in bi lahko vplivala na nepristranost sodišča. Zato predlaga, da se tožba obravnava pri sodišču, ki bo najmanj 100 km oddaljeno od ... Predlog ni utemeljen.

Zatrjevana okoliščina, da je tožnikova mati zaposlena pri sodišču v ..., ne pomeni tehtnega razloga za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča po 68. čl. ZPP. Zadevo je namreč mogoče rešiti z dodelitvijo drugi enoti istega sodišča, s čimer bodo odpadli toženčevi pomisleki o postopanju pred sodiščem, pri katerem je zaposlena tožnikova mati.