Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 4/96 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1996:I.R.4.96 AI generated

Supreme Court transfers case to Trebnje District Court due to sister's employment at Grosuplje court.

Case Number Sklep I R 4/96
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 Trebnje upon the applicants' request. The applicants argued that their sister's employment at the Grosuplje District Court constituted a significant reason for jurisdictional transfer under Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court agreed, finding the employment relationship a valid weighty reason to shift proceedings to the Trebnje court.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 37 of the Non-Litigation Procedure Act: The Supreme Court may transfer a case to another competent court if weighty reasons exist, such as a close family member of the applicant being employed at the currently competent court.

Keywords

AI generated
jurisdictional transfer weighty reasons family member employment civil procedure act non-litigation procedure competent court sister employment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 37 of the Non-Litigation Procedure Act
AI generated
Sklep I R 38/2011
Supreme Court allows transfer of case to another court when a party is employed there as a clerk.
Sklep I R 42/2008
Supreme Court delegates jurisdiction to Jesenices District Court due to apparent bias of Radovljica Court against a judge sitting there.
VSRS Sklep I R 115/2025
Appeal dismissed; personal ties between parties and judge insufficient to transfer jurisdiction under ZPP Art. 67.
Sklep I R 19/98
Supreme Court delegates jurisdiction to another district court due to kinship between plaintiff and judge under ZPP Art. 68.
Sklep I R 15/2004
Supreme Court rejects jurisdiction transfer request due to lack of impartiality concerns in traffic compensation case.

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 nepravdni zadevi se določi Okrajno sodišče v Trebnjem.

[JEDRO]

Dejstvo, da je snaha predlagateljev zaposlena pri sedaj stvarno pristojnem Okrajnem sodišču v Grosupljem, predstavlja tehten razlog za postopanje po 68. členu ZPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Predlagatelja sta vložila predlog pri tedanjem pristojnem sodišču Temeljnem sodišču v Ljubljani, enoti v Grosupljem. Nato sta predlagala, da o predlogu odloči drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, ker je snaha predlagateljev zaposlena pri tem sodišču. Predlagala sta, da naj Vrhovno sodišče RS odstopi zadevo Okrajnemu sodišču v Trebnjem. S predlogom se je strinjalo tudi sedaj pristojno sodišče Okrajno sodišče v Grosupljem in predlagalo, da naj se za odločanje določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče.

Predlog je utemeljen.

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije ugotavlja, da je v konkretnem primeru podan razlog iz 68. člena zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) v zvezi s 37. členom zakona o nepravdnem postopku. Po tem določilu Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije na predlog stranke ali pristojnega sodišča določi, naj postopa v posamezni zadevi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče z njegovega območja, če za to obstajajo tehtni razlogi. Dejstvo, da je snaha predlagateljev zaposlena pri sedaj stvarno pristojnem Okrajnem sodišču v Grosupljem, predstavlja tehten razlog za postopanje po navedeni določbi ZPP. Ker sta predlagatelja predlagala, da naj o zadevi odloča Okrajno sodišče v Trebnjem, je vrhovno sodišče predlogu ugodilo in za odločanje v tej zadevi določilo to sodišče.