Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 35/96 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1996:I.R.35.96 AI generated

Supreme Court transfers possession disturbance case to another court due to plaintiff's judicial employment conflict.

Case Number Sklep I R 35/96
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 L. to handle a possession disturbance case, despite the plaintiff's initial request for a different court. The plaintiff, who was a judge at the District Court in L., argued that her employment created a conflict of interest requiring a transfer. The court ruled that this employment circumstance constituted a significant reason under the Code of Civil Procedure to assign the case to another competent court.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

68. člen ZPP; When a party is a judge at the court hearing their case, this constitutes a significant reason for the Supreme Court to designate another competent court for the proceedings.

Keywords

AI generated
Code of Civil Procedure judicial conflict of interest court designation possession disturbance Supreme Court transfer

Cited Legislation

AI generated
68. člen ZPP
AI generated
Sklep I Pr 48/92
Court dismisses case against a judge due to conflict of interest and lack of impartiality.
Sklep I R 118/2002
Supreme Court rejects jurisdiction transfer due to lawyer's employment at the court.
Sklep I Pr 36/94
Court dismisses request for change of court because internal reassignment of cases by the president avoids conflict of interest.
Sklep I R 62/97
Supreme Court transfers case to another court because the defendant is a judge at the original court.
Sklep I R 109/2012
Supreme Court transfers case to another court because the defendant is a judge at the original court.

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 pravdni zadevi se določi Okrajno sodišče v Š. L.

[JEDRO]

Okoliščina, da je tožnica M. B. V. sodnica pri sodišču, ki naj bi obravnavalo to pravdno zadevo, predstavlja tehten razlog za to, da se na podlagi 68. člena ZPP določi za obravnavanje te zadeve drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožeča stranka je vložila dne 29.10.1996 pri Okrajnem sodišču v L. proti toženi stranki tožbo zaradi motenja posesti. Obenem je predlagala, naj se zato, ker je tožnica M. B. V. zaposlena pri Okrajnem sodišču v L., za odločanje določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče.

Predlog je utemeljen.

Po 68. členu zakona o pravdnem postopku - 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 tožnica M.B. V. sodnica pri sodišču, ki naj bi obravnavalo to pravdno zadevo, predstavlja tehten razlog za to, da se na podlagi 68. člena ZPP določi za obravnavanje te zadeve drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče. Zato je vrhovno sodišče predlogu ugodilo.