Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 6/95 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1995:I.R.6.95 AI generated

Supreme Court transfers case to Ptuj District Court due to personal familiarity of parties with all judges.

Case Number Sklep I R 6/95
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 the Republic of Slovenia transferred the case to the District Court in Ptuj. The District Court had requested a transfer because the plaintiff and defendant were personally known to all civil judges of that court. The Supreme Court found this personal familiarity to be a significant reason under the Civil Procedure Act, thereby validating the request for a change of venue.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

68. člen ZPP; When parties are personally known to all judges of a competent court, this constitutes a significant reason for transferring the case to another competent court under Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Keywords

AI generated
personal familiarity change of venue Civil Procedure Act significant reason transfer of case personal knowledge competent court

Cited Legislation

AI generated
68. člen ZPP
AI generated
VSL Sklep R 172/2019
Court dismisses jurisdiction dispute as joint marital property shares must be determined uniformly across all assets.
VSL sklep III Cp 525/2001
Appeal dismissed; customs court lacks jurisdiction over movable seizure under tax enforcement law.
Sodba II Ips 493/98
Supreme Court partially allows appeal on fiduciary land ownership transfer and boundary definition.
VSM Sklep I Cp 626/2018
Appeal court annuls first instance suspension due to retroactive invalidity of ZPŠOIRSP Article 12 for pre-2014 claims.
VSL sklep I Cpg 1295/99
Appeal allowed; lease termination by agreement vs. notice; factual dispute requires new evidence.

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 pravdni zadevi se določi Okrožno sodišče na Ptuju.

[JEDRO]

Utemeljenost predloga, ker sta tožeči stranki osebno znani vsem sodnikom civilnega oddelka okrožnega sodišča.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožeče stranke so vložile tožbo proti toženi stranki pri krajevno pristojnem tedanjem Temeljnem sodišču v ... Za obravnavanje zadeve je sedaj pristojno Okrožno sodišče v ... To sodišče je dne 22.2.1995 predlagalo Vrhovnemu sodišču Republike Slovenije, da naj na podlagi 68. člena ZPP za sojenje v tej zadevi določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče. Predlog je utemeljilo s tem, da sta tožeči stranki osebno znani vsem sodnikom civilnega oddelka tega okrožnega sodišča.

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. Razlog, ki ga je navedel predlagatelj, predstavlja tehten razlog za postopanje po navedeni določbi ZPP. Vrhovno sodišče je zato za odločanje določilo Okrožno sodišče na Ptuju.