Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 26/96 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1996:I.R.26.96 AI generated

Supreme Court transfers case to different court because plaintiff is a judge in another district.

Case Number Sklep I R 26/96
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia granted the request to transfer jurisdiction from the District Court in Železniki to the District Court in Celje. The plaintiff, a judge at the Celje court, argued that this transfer was necessary due to his official position. The court ruled that his status as a judge in Celje constituted a significant reason to select a different competent court to ensure procedural efficiency.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 68 of the Act on Civil Procedure; The Supreme Court may designate another competent court if it is evident that the proceedings will be conducted more easily or if there are other significant reasons, such as the plaintiff being a judge in a different district.

Keywords

AI generated
transfer of jurisdiction plaintiff judge status competent court selection procedural efficiency significant reasons civil procedure act supreme court decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 68 of the Act on Civil Procedure (ZPP)
AI generated
Sklep I Pr 18/93
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses transfer of jurisdiction request based on former employee status.
VSM Sklep I Kr 65979/2019
Court transfers criminal case to different district court due to perceived lack of judicial impartiality.
VSRS Sklep I R 160/2022
Supreme Court transfers divorce property case to Ptuj Court due to judge's connection with one party.
VSRS Sklep I R 186/2025
Inheritance case dismissed due to judge's appearance at competent court undermining impartiality appearance.
VSRS Sklep I R 51/2024
Supreme Court transfers civil case jurisdiction from Ljubljana to Celje due to perceived lack of impartiality.

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

Predlogu se ugodi in se za odločanje v tej zadevi določi kot pristojno sodišče Okrajno sodišče v S.

[JEDRO]

Okoliščina, da je tožnik sodnik Okrajnega sodišča v C., predstavlja tehten razlog, da se v konkretnem primeru določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče (z območja drugega višjega sodišča), ki bo o zadevi odločalo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožnik je vložil dne 4.1.1996 pri Okrajnem sodišču v Ž. tožbo proti tožencema J. R. in M. R., s katero je zahteval izpraznitev pomožnih prostorov. To sodišče je predlagalo prenos pristojnosti po 68. členu Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), ker je tožnik sodnik pri Okrajnem sodišču v C., ki je bilo tako kot Okrajno sodišče v Ž. enota Temeljnega sodišča v C.

Predlog je utemeljen.

Po 68. členu ZPP lahko Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije kot najvišje sodišče v državi določi, naj postopa v posamezni zadevi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, če je očitno, da se bo tako laže opravil postopek, ali če so za to drugi tehtni razlogi. Okoliščina, da je tožnik sodnik Okrajnega sodišča v C., predstavlja tehten razlog, da se v konkretnem primeru določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče (z območja drugega višjega sodišča), ki bo o zadevi odločalo namesto Okrajnega sodišča v Ž.

Iz navedenega razloga je vrhovno sodišče predlogu ugodilo.