Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 2/98 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1998:I.R.2.98 AI generated

Supreme Court transfers case to local court due to plaintiff's residence and health issues.

Case Number Sklep I R 2/98
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 designated the District Court in M. as the competent court for the proceedings. The plaintiff resided in M. and suffered from poor health, making travel difficult, while both their counsel and the state prosecutor's office maintained offices there. The court ruled that these circumstances justified transferring the case to minimize costs and facilitate the process.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 68 of the Act on Civil Procedure; A court may designate a different competent court if the plaintiff's residence, health condition, and the location of legal representatives make the proceedings more efficient and less costly in that location.

Keywords

AI generated
competent court designation plaintiff residence health condition travel cost efficiency proceedings civil procedure law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 68 of the Act on Civil Procedure
AI generated
Sklep I R 31/2002
Supreme Court rejects jurisdiction transfer request due to lack of efficiency and procedural economy principles.
VSRS Sklep I R 129/2015
Supreme Court transfers case to another court to ensure objective impartiality due to judge's family ties to plaintiffs.
VSL Sklep R 285/2018
Supreme Court confirms District Court jurisdiction over child support and paternity invalidity claims after initial objection.
VSL sklep R 300/2010
Court dismisses jurisdiction objection, ruling labor dispute between entity and sole proprietor is economic.
Sklep I R 88/2000
Supreme Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction request where same judge presided over settlement and trial.

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 Okrožno sodišče v M..

[JEDRO]

Okoliščine, da živi tožnik v M. in da zaradi slabega zdravja težko potuje, da je pooblastil za zastopanje odvetnico iz M. in da ima zakoniti zastopnik tožene stranke Državno pravobranilstvo Republike Slovenije svoj zunanji oddelek tudi v M., kažejo, da se bo postopek laže in z manjšimi stroški opravil v M.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Pravdni stranki sta na glavni obravnavi dne 22.12.1997 pri Okrožnem sodišču v N. soglasno predlagali, da se zaradi ekonomičnosti postopka določi, da v tej zadevi opravi postopek Okrožno sodišče v M. Predlog sta utemeljili s tem, da tožnik zaradi slabega zdravja težko potuje, živi pa v M.. Tudi odvetnica je iz M. Državno pravobranilstvo Republike Slovenije ima svoj oddelek v M.

Predlog je utemeljen.

Okoliščine, da živi tožnik v M. in da zaradi slabega zdravja težko potuje, da je pooblastil za zastopanje odvetnico iz M. in da ima zakoniti zastopnik tožene stranke Državno pravobranilstvo Republike Slovenije svoj zunanji oddelek tudi v M., kažejo, da se bo postopek laže in z manjšimi stroški opravil v M. To so dovolj tehtni razlogi, da je Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije na podlagi 68. čl. Zakona o pravdnem postopku določilo za postopanje v tej zadevi Okrožno sodišče v M. kot stvarno pristojno sodišče v kraju, kjer tožnik živi in kjer imata sedež njegova pooblaščenka in oddelek zakonitega zastopnika tožene stranke.