Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep III R 2/2009 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2009:III.R.2.2009 AI generated

Supreme Court transfers case to Ljubljana District Court due to perceived lack of impartiality in the building renovation dispute.

Case Number Sklep III R 2/2009
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 transferred the case to the District Court in Ljubljana upon the plaintiff's request. The dispute concerned the renovation of a court building managed by the Ljubljana court, involving employees of that same court. The court ruled that the presence of these employees created a sufficient risk of perceived bias, necessitating a transfer to ensure objective impartiality.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Act on Civil Procedure; A court may transfer a case to another competent court if it is evident that the proceedings would be easier or if there are other significant reasons, such as the need to ensure objective impartiality when court employees are involved in the subject matter.

Keywords

AI generated
civil procedure court impartiality case transfer building renovation perceived bias ZPP Article 67 procedural justice

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 67 of the Act on Civil Procedure (ZPP)
AI generated
VSRS sklep I R 80/2015
Appeal dismissed: Delegation of jurisdiction is not a remedy for alleged judicial misconduct.
Sklep I R 46/2013
Supreme Court transfers case to Ljubljana court to ensure impartiality against bias claims.
Sklep I R 91/2013
Supreme Court transfers execution case to another court due to perceived lack of judicial impartiality.
VSRS Sklep I R 149/2025
Plaintiff's request for jurisdiction transfer based solely on residence change is dismissed as it bypasses ZPP rules.
VSRS Sklep I R 83/2016
Supreme Court delegates jurisdiction to Kranj due to potential bias of Ljubljana court against defendant's brother.

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 zadevi se določi Okrožno sodišče v Kranju.

[JEDRO]

Spor izvira iz obnove sodne stavbe, katere upravnik je prav sodišče, ki vodi postopek in pri njeni izvedbi so sodelovali uslužbenci istega sodišča. To je dovolj tehten razlog za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Tožeča stranka predlaga določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča, ki naj odloči v zadevi. Predlog utemeljuje s tem, da spor izvira iz obnove sodne stavbe v Ljubljani. Med izvedbo gradbenih del je s tožečo stranko sodelovalo precej oseb, ki so zaposlene na Okrožnem sodišču v Ljubljani in katerih zaslišanje je predlagano v postopku.

2. Po določbi 67. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) lahko Vrhovno sodišče na predlog stranke ali pristojnega sodišča določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, da postopa v zadevi, če je očitno, da se bo tako laže opravil postopek, ali če so za to drugi tehtni razlogi.

3. Odločanje Okrožnega sodišča v Ljubljani o tožbenem zahtevku, ki izvira iz obnove sodne stavbe, katere upravnik je prav Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani in pri izvedbi katere so sodelovali uslužbenci okrožnega sodišča, bi pri strankah in širši javnosti utegnilo vzbuditi dvom v objektivno nepristranskost sodišča, kar je dovolj tehten razlog za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča. Vrhovno sodišče je zato predlogu ugodilo in za odločanje v zadevi določilo Okrožno sodišče v Kranju.