Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 40/97 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1997:I.R.40.97 AI generated

Supreme Court transfers enforcement case to another court due to defendant's employment there creating a significant reason.

Case Number Sklep I R 40/97
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 the Republic of Slovenia transferred the enforcement proceedings to a different competent court upon the defendant's request. The defendant, employed as a clerk at the original court, argued that their employment created a significant reason for transferring jurisdiction to facilitate the process. The court agreed, ruling that the defendant's position constituted a substantial ground for reassigning the case to another court.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 68 of the Act on Civil Procedure; A court may transfer a case to another competent court upon request if there is a significant reason, such as the defendant's employment at the original court, to facilitate the proceedings.

Keywords

AI generated
civil procedure jurisdiction transfer enforcement proceedings significant reason defendant employment court reassignment procedural efficiency

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 68 of the Act on Civil Procedure
AI generated
Sklep I R 15/97
Supreme Court rejects jurisdiction delegation due to lack of compelling reasons in early enforcement phase.
Sklep I R 112/2005
Supreme Court transfers enforcement case to another court due to employee's employment at the original court raising impartiality doubts.
Sklep I R 27/2001
Supreme Court transfers case to another court because a defendant works at the current court.
Sklep I R 118/2007
Supreme Court dismisses transfer of jurisdiction request after main proceedings are legally final.
Sklep I R 110/2006
Supreme Court allows transfer of case to another court due to employee's employment there affecting public perception of neutrality.

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 izvršilni zadevi se določi Okrajno sodišče v K.

[JEDRO]

Dejstvo, da je dolžnica zaposlena kot vpisničarka in strojepiska pri Okrajnem sodišču v R., je tehten razlog za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožeča stranka je predlagala izvršbo na podlagi verodostojne listine pri pristojnem Okrajnem sodišču v R. To je dovolilo predlagano izvršbo s sklepom I 220/97 z dne 22.4.1997, ki ga je dolžnica izpodbijala z ugovorom. Okrajno sodišče v R. je nato predlagalo Vrhovnemu sodišču RS, da za postopanje v tej zadevi določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče. Meni, da obstaja tehten razlog za prenos pristojnosti, ker je dolžnica zaposlena pri tamkajšnjem sodišču.

Predlog je utemeljen.

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije je o predlogu tožeče stranke odločilo na podlagi 68. člena zakona o pravdnem postopku, po katerem lahko to sodišče na predlog stranke ali pristojnega sodišča določi, da naj postopa v posamezni zadevi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, če je očitno, da se bo tako lažje opravil postopek ali če so za to drugi tehtni razlogi. Dejstvo, da je dolžnica zaposlena kot vpisničarka in strojepiska pri Okrajnem sodišču v R., je tehten razlog za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča. Zato je bilo treba predlogu ugoditi.