Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 37/96 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1996:I.R.37.96 AI generated

Supreme Court transfers civil case to another district court because a judge is a relative of the plaintiff's representative.

Case Number Sklep I R 37/96
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 transferred jurisdiction of a civil debt claim from the District Court in N. to another competent court. The plaintiff's representative's wife was a judge at the original court, creating a potential conflict of interest. The court ruled that this familial relationship constituted a significant reason to appoint a different court to ensure procedural fairness.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 68 of the Act on Civil Procedure; The Supreme Court may designate another competent court to hear a case if there are significant reasons, such as a judge being a relative of a party's representative, to facilitate the proceedings or ensure impartiality.

Keywords

AI generated
civil procedure jurisdiction transfer conflict of interest family relationship Supreme Court impartiality procedural fairness

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 68 of the Act on Civil Procedure
AI generated
Sklep I R 3/2002
Supreme Court transfers case to another court due to plaintiff's employment at the original court.
Sklep I R 93/2007
Slovenian Supreme Court allows transfer of case to another court due to judge's relationship with a party.
Sklep I R 19/2001
Court dismisses case and transfers jurisdiction to Celje because plaintiff is court clerk at Žalec court.
Sklep I R 42/2000
Supreme Court transfers jurisdiction to another court because the defendant is a judge at the original court.
Sklep I R 60/2001
Court transfers possession disturbance case to another court due to plaintiff's clerk employment at 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 zadevi se določi kot pristojno sodišče Okrajno sodišče v Č.

[JEDRO]

Okoliščina, da je žena pooblaščenca tožeče stranke R. P. sodnica Okrajnega sodišča v N., je tehten razlog, da se v konkretnem primeru določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, ki bo o zadevi odločalo namesto Okrajnega sodišča v N.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožeča stranka K. P. P., O., Č., je dne 29.12.1995 pri Okrajnem sodišču v N. proti tožencu F. K. vložila tožbo, s katero zahteva plačilo zneska 103.061,00 SIT. Ker se je glede na vlogo tožene stranke izkazalo, da je tožeča stranka v sorodstvenem razmerju s sodnico Okrajnega sodišča v N. T. P., je to sodišče predlagalo, da določi vrhovno sodišče drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče za odločanje v tej zadevi. Omenjena sodnica je namreč žena pooblaščenca tožeče stranke R. P.

Predlog je utemeljen.

Po 68.čl. Zakona o pravdnem postopku 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 žena pooblaščenca tožeče stranke R. P. sodnica Okrajnega sodišča v N., je tehten razlog, da se v konkretnem primeru določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, ki bo o zadevi odločalo namesto Okrajnega sodišča v N.

Zato je vrhovno sodišče predlogu ugodilo.