Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 26/97 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1997:I.R.26.97 AI generated

Court transfers possession dispute to another court due to conflict of interest involving a court employee.

Case Number Sklep I R 26/97
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia designated the District Court in O. as the competent court for a possession disturbance claim. The District Court had proposed this transfer because the defendant was employed there as a court enforcement officer, creating a clear conflict of interest. The court ruled that the presence of a judicial officer as a party necessitates a transfer to ensure impartiality and procedural fairness.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 68 of the Act on Civil Procedure; Article 6, point 106 of the Act on Courts: The Supreme Court may designate another competent court upon request if there is a clear risk of doubt regarding the impartiality of the trial, such as when a court employee is a party to the case.

Keywords

AI generated
conflict of interest impartiality of trial court employee party transfer of jurisdiction possession disturbance claim

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 68 of the Act on Civil Procedure
Article 6, point 106 of the Act on Courts
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 29/95
Supreme Court delegates case to Radovljica District Court for procedural efficiency under ZPP Art. 68.
Sklep I Pr 18/93
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses transfer of jurisdiction request based on former employee status.
VSRS sklep I R 98/2014
Supreme Court delegates jurisdiction to another court due to a judge being a party's spouse.
Sklep I R 7/2000
Supreme Court transfers case to Ljubljana court due to employee bias concerns and economic efficiency.

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 O.

[JEDRO]

Dvom v nepristransko sojenje je tehtna okoliščina, ki Vrhovnemu sodišču RS narekuje določitev drugega, stvarno pristojnega sodišča.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožeča stranka je vložila tožbo zaradi motenja posesti na Okrajno sodišče na P. To sodišče je predlagalo Vrhovnemu sodišču Republike Slovenije, naj določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, ker je drugotoženi A. V. zaposlen pri Okrajnem sodišču na P. kot sodni izvršitelj.

Predlog je utemeljen.

Po določilu 68. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP; Ur.l. SFRJ št. 4/77 do 27/90 in RS št. 55/92) v zvezi s 6. točko 106. člena Zakona o sodiščih (ZS, Ur.l. RS št. 19/94 in 45/95) Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije lahko na predlog stranke ali pristojnega sodišča 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. Med slednje spada okoliščina, da bi lahko prišlo do dvoma v nepristranskost sojenja, saj je v pravdi kot stranka udeležen izvršilni organ, torej nekdo iz osebja sodišča, ki naj odloči v sporni zadevi. Zato je vrhovno sodišče predlogu ugodilo in določilo drugo sodišče, ki je krajevno v bližini.