Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 7/96 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1996:I.R.7.96 AI generated

Court transfers case to another district court due to long-term juror relationship causing impartiality doubts.

Case Number Sklep I R 7/96
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 designated the District Court in Radovljica as the competent court for the proceedings. The lower court's chief prosecutor requested a transfer citing the defendant's long-term service as a juror at the Jesenice court and a familial relationship with a judge, which could raise doubts about impartiality. The Supreme Court agreed that these circumstances constituted significant grounds under Article 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure to ensure a fairer trial elsewhere.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure; A long-term relationship between a party and a judge as a juror, combined with a familial tie between the party and a judge, constitutes significant grounds for transferring the case to another competent court to avoid doubts about impartiality.

Keywords

AI generated
impartiality doubts juror relationship case transfer Code of Civil Procedure competent court designation familial relationship procedural fairness

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure
AI generated
Sklep I R 104/2006
Foreign partner of court clerk is not grounds for transferring case to another court.
Sklep I R 30/2002
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses transfer request where client's relative is retired court employee.
Sklep I Pr 1/93
Supreme Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction request based solely on dissatisfaction with a judge's conduct.
VSRS Sklep I R 124/2016
Employment at the court of jurisdiction is a valid reason to transfer a case to another court under ZPP Art. 67.
Sklep I R 19/2000
Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction due to former extramarital partner relationship as no impartiality issue exists.

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 Radovljici.

[JEDRO]

Poznanstvo s sodniki zaradi dolgoletnega sodelovanja toženca kot porotnika, utegne pri drugi stranki povzročiti dvom o nepristranosti sodišča. Glede na take okoliščine so podani razlogi po 68.čl. zakona o pravdnem postopku, da se za postopanje določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Predstojnica Okrajnega sodišča na Jesenicah je v predlogu z dne 20.2.1996 opr. št. P ... navedla, da tožnika izločujeta sodnika T. K., ki je v svaštvu s tožencem, in da je toženec dolgoletni sodnik porotnik pri tem sodišču. To so okoliščine, ki bi pri strankah lahko vzbudile dvom o nepristranosti sodišča. Zato predlaga, da Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije določi za postopanje v tej zadevi na podlagi 68.čl. zakona o pravdnem postopku drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče.

Predlog je utemeljen.

Okoliščine, ki jih navaja predlog, pomenijo tehtne razloge, zaradi katerih je očitno, da se bo postopek laže opravil pri drugem sodišču. Poznanstvo s sodniki zaradi dolgoletnega sodelovanja toženca kot porotnika, utegne pri drugi stranki povzročiti dvom o nepristranosti sodišča. To tem bolj, ker tožeča stranka v svoji vlogi z dne 13.12.1995 opozarja sodišče na sorodstveno razmerje toženca s sodnikom K. in v zvezi s tem na dolžnost sodišča, da poskrbi za nepristranost. Glede na take okoliščine so podani razlogi po 68.čl. zakona o pravdnem postopku, da se za postopanje določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče. Vrhovno sodišče je določilo kot pristojno Okrajno sodišče v Radovljici kot najbližje sodišče.