Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep III R 57/2004 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2004:III.R.57.2004 AI generated

Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction request based on lawyer-judge conflict requiring recusal, not delegation.

Case Number Sklep III R 57/2004
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court rejected the defendant's request to transfer the case to another competent court. The defendant argued that the current judge had previously represented both parties as a lawyer and faced criminal complaints, while the opposing party contested this claim. The court ruled that such a relationship constitutes grounds for recusal under Article 70 of the Civil Procedure Act, not a valid reason for judicial delegation under Article 67.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 70 of the Civil Procedure Act: A conflict of interest between a party and a judge constitutes grounds for recusal, not a valid basis for transferring jurisdiction to another court.

Keywords

AI generated
judicial delegation recusal grounds lawyer judge conflict competent court transfer civil procedure act

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 70 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
Sklep I R 57/2002
Supreme Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction due to former judge joining client's law firm.
Sklep I R 96/2007
Supreme Court allows transfer of case to another court to ensure appearance of impartiality when defendant works there.
Sklep I R 62/97
Supreme Court transfers case to another court because the defendant is a judge at the original court.
VSRS sklep I R 63/2015
Supreme Court of Slovenia rejects request to transfer case due to judge's impartiality concerns.
Sklep I R 22/2006
Appeal dismissed: Friendship between judges and lawyer's conflict of interest does not justify transfer of jurisdiction.

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 za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Razmerje med stranko in sodnikom je razlog za izločitev sodnika in ne za delegacijo pristojnosti.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Toženec predlaga določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča, ker ga je sedanji sodnik mag. A.A. zastopal prej, ko je bil še odvetnik, pri neki drugi zadevi, prav tako pa tudi nasprotno stranko. Dodaja, da je zoper sodnika "podal kazensko pobudo" zaradi njegovega protipravnega ravnanja.

Predlog ni utemeljen.

Vrhovno sodišče lahko na podlagi določbe 67. člena ZPP 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. Gre za t.i. smotrno delegacijo pristojnosti. Opisano razmerje med tožencem in sodnikom je razlog za izločitev takega sodnika (70. člen ZPP). Če bi bili zaradi takega ali podobnega razloga izločeni vsi sodniki sodišča, bi šele prišla v poštev določba 66. člena ZPP, po kateri bi to sodišče na predlog višjega sodišča določilo drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče z območja višjega sodišča.

Ker po povedanem predlog za delegacijo krajevne pristojnosti ni utemeljen, mu Vrhovno sodišče ni ugodilo.