Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 32/95 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1995:I.R.32.95 AI generated

Court transfers case to different territorial court because defendant is a judge at the original court.

Case Number Sklep I R 32/95
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 Slovenia designated the District Court in Žalc to handle the proceedings instead of the originally assigned court in Celje. The defendant, who serves as a judge at the Celje court, argued that her position creates a significant conflict of interest under Article 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court agreed, ruling that her employment at the territorial court necessitates transferring the case to ensure an impartial trial.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure; A judge serving at the territorially competent court constitutes a significant reason for designating a different territorially competent court to ensure impartiality.

Keywords

AI generated
Code of Civil Procedure territorial jurisdiction judge impartiality conflict of interest court designation Slovenian law procedural transfer

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure

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 Okrajno sodišče v Žalcu.

[JEDRO]

Okoliščina, da toženka dela kot sodnica pri sodišču, ki je krajevno pristojno za sojenje v tej zadevi, pomeni tehten razlog za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča (68. čl. zakona o pravdnem postopku).

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Okrajno sodišče v Celju navaja v predlogu za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča za odločanje v tej zadevi, da je druga tožena stranka sodnica Okrajnega sodišča v Celju.

Okoliščina, da toženka dela kot sodnica pri sodišču, ki je krajevno pristojno za sojenje v tej zadevi, pomeni tehten razlog za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča (68.čl. zakona o pravdnem postopku). Vrhovno sodišče je določilo kot sodišče, ki bo postopalo v tej zadevi, Okrajno sodišče v Žalcu. Po dosedanjih podatkih spisa ni zadržkov za nemoten potek postopka pri tem sodišču.