Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 89/2008 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2008:I.R.89.2008 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses request to change court as vague bias claim lacks concrete facts under ZPP Art. 67.

Case Number Sklep I R 89/2008
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 rejected a request to transfer a civil case to a different competent court. The plaintiff argued that only another court could decide impartially, but provided no specific facts to support this claim. The court ruled that such a general assertion is insufficient under Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure, noting that impartiality concerns individual judges rather than the court itself.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure; A vague claim that another court is more impartial is not a weighty reason for transferring jurisdiction, as impartiality applies to individual judges under the institution of recusal.

Keywords

AI generated
change of court impartiality claim Code of Civil Procedure weighty reasons recusal institution competent court procedural request

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPP)
AI generated
VSL sklep II Cpg 1191/99
Appeal allowed: territorial jurisdiction for provisional attachment of negotiable instrument depends on its physical location.
VSRS Sklep I R 41/2022
Supreme Court transfers case to another district court due to perceived lack of judicial impartiality.
Sklep I R 7/96
Court transfers case to another district court due to long-term juror relationship causing impartiality doubts.
Sklep I Pr 21/94
Supreme Court transfers appeal to another court due to conflict of interest involving prosecutor's office head.
VSRS Sklep I R 3/2025
Supreme Court transfers case jurisdiction due to clerk's familial tie to opposing party causing impartiality doubts.

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 se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Pavšalna in nekonkretizirana trditev, da bi samo drugo sodišče lahko nepristransko odločalo v zadevi, ni tehten razlog za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

V pravdni zadevi Okrajnega sodišča v Piranu P 236/2005 je tožnik na naroku dne 18.6.2008 predlagal določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča. Navedel je, da lahko samo drugo sodišče nepristransko odloča v zadevi.

Predlog ni utemeljen.

Po 67. členu Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP; Uradni list RS št. 26/99 in nadalj.) lahko Vrhovno sodišče na predlog stranke določi za postopanje drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, če je očitno, da se bo tako lažje opravil postopek, ali če so za to podani drugi tehtni razlogi.

V obravnavanem primeru tožnik ne trdi, da bi se postopek lažje opravil pri drugem sodišču, prav tako pa ne navaja nobenega tehtnega razloga za določitev drugega okrajnega sodišča namesto Okrajnega sodišča v Piranu. Trditev, da bi samo drugo sodišče lahko nepristransko odločalo v tej zadevi, je pavšalna in ni utemeljena z nobenimi konkretnimi dejstvi. Že zato predlogu ni mogoče ugoditi. Poleg tega se nepristranskost ne more nanašati na sodišče, temveč le na konkretnega sodnika, kar se obravnava v okviru instituta izločitve sodnika (70. člen ZPP). Zato Vrhovno sodišče zaključuje, da je predlog neutemeljen, zaradi česar ga je bilo treba zavrniti.