Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 50/98 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1998:I.R.50.98 AI generated

Supreme Court transfers case to another district court due to impartiality concerns regarding the original court's own actions.

Case Number Sklep I R 50/98
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 M. as the competent court for the proceedings. The plaintiffs argued that the original District Court's decision was unlawful and sought damages, requesting a transfer to avoid conflict of interest. The court ruled that since the original court adjudicated its own potential misconduct, transferring the case to another district court was necessary to ensure impartiality.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 68 of the Act on Civil Procedure; Article 6, point 106 of the Act on Courts: If a court is clearly incompetent to adjudicate on its own acts or if there are other weighty reasons, the Supreme Court may designate another competent court to ensure impartiality.

Keywords

AI generated
impartiality concern transfer of jurisdiction court own acts civil procedure law conflict of interest competent court designation supreme court decision

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 R 38/2006
Supreme Court rejects transfer of tort case to another court solely for potential joinder of proceedings.
VSRS sklep III R 12/2015
Supreme Court transfers case to Kranj court to ensure impartiality against Ljubljana court's alleged misconduct.
VSL Sklep III Cp 2203/2024
Appeal allowed; appeal admissible when change of claim and lack of jurisdiction are joined.
VSRS Sklep I R 112/2015
Supreme Court transfers case to Ljubljana to ensure impartiality when suing the court for judicial misconduct.
VDSS sklep Pdp 1129/2009
Appeal dismissed because the employer is not a party to the jurisdiction objection ruling against other defendants.

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 Okrožno sodišče v M.

[JEDRO]

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

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožnika sta vložila tožbo, v kateri navajata, da sta oškodovana zaradi sklepa, ki ga je izdalo Okrožno sodišče v M.S. Trdita, da sklep ni zakonit in zahtevata plačilo odškodnine. Ker je za razsojanje v pravdi pristojno prav Okrožno sodišče v M. S., tožnika predlagata, da se za sojenje v tem sporu določi Okrožno sodišče v M.

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 gre za spor v zvezi z dejanjem, ki ga je storilo sodišče, ki naj sedaj odloča o njegovi zakonitosti in obsodi toženo stranko na plačilo odškodnine. Ker ni primerno, da bi morali o dejanju sodnikov, ki delajo na Okrožnem sodišču v M. S., odločati njihovi kolegi in bi lahko prišlo do dvoma v nepristranost sojenja, je vrhovno sodišče ugodilo predlogu tožnikov in določilo drugo sodišče, ki sta ga tožnika sama predlagala in ki je v krajevni bližini.