Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 6/97 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1997:I.R.6.97 AI generated

Court transfers case to another competent court because plaintiff is employed at the original court.

Case Number Sklep I R 6/97
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 proceedings to a different competent court upon the plaintiff's request. The plaintiff, who was employed at the court handling the case, argued that her position created a conflict of interest requiring a transfer. The court ruled that her employment at the original court constituted a significant reason under Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act to reassign the case for procedural efficiency.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act; The Supreme Court may transfer proceedings to another competent court if the plaintiff's employment at the original court constitutes a significant reason for such transfer to ensure procedural fairness and efficiency.

Keywords

AI generated
civil procedure transfer of proceedings conflict of interest judicial employment competent court significant reason procedural efficiency

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act (ZPP)
AI generated
VSRS Sklep I R 181/2025
Supreme Court rejects delegation of jurisdiction request due to procedural delay and lack of valid grounds.
Sklep I R 99/2011
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses transfer request for lack of objective impartiality concerns.
Sklep VIII R 12/97
Supreme Court transfers labor case to another court due to former judge's potential bias.
Sklep VIII R 14/99
Court dismisses case due to judge's prior employment at the requesting court raising impartiality doubts.
VSL Sklep I Cp 2175/2019
Appeal dismissed; guardian appointment process requires specific standing and legal interest for participation.

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 S. B.

[JEDRO]

Okoliščina, da je predlagateljica zaposlena na nepravdnem oddelku sodišča, pri katerem je bil predlog vložen, in ki je stvarno pristojno za obravnavo te zadeve, predstavlja tehten razlog v smislu določbe 68.člena ZPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Predlagateljica je dne 8.11.1996 vložila pri Okrajnem sodišču v M. proti nasprotnim udeležencem predlog za delitev stvari v solastnini. V odgovoru na predlog je udeleženka M. K. navedla, da je predlagateljica zaposlena na nepravdnem oddelku sodišča, pri katerem je bil predlog vložen in predlagala, da se za obravnavanje zadeve zato določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče. Sodnik, ki mu je zadeva dodeljena v obravnavo, se je s predlogom strinjal.

Predlog je utemeljen.

Po 68. členu zakona o pravdnem postopku - ZPP lahko Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije kot najvišje sodišče v državi odloči, 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 predlagateljica zaposlena na nepravdnem oddelku sodišča, pri katerem je bil predlog vložen, in ki je stvarno pristojno za obravnavo te zadeve, predstavlja tehten razlog v smislu določbe 68.člena ZPP. Zato je vrhovno sodišče predlogu ugodilo.