Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 29/99 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1999:I.R.29.99 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; employee status at opposing court constitutes valid reason for transfer under ZPP Art. 68.

Case Number Sklep I R 29/99
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia dismissed the appeal regarding the transfer of jurisdiction in an inheritance proceeding. The petitioner, currently employed as a typist at the High Court in the same location as the opposing party, argued for a transfer to ensure impartiality. The court ruled that the petitioner's employment at the opposing court creates a significant reason under Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act to transfer the case to another competent court.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act; An employee of the court where the opposing party is located constitutes a significant reason for transferring jurisdiction to prevent doubts about judicial impartiality.

Keywords

AI generated
Civil Procedure Act transfer of jurisdiction judicial impartiality employee status inheritance proceeding significant reason doubt in impartiality

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
Sklep I R 107/2007
Supreme Court transfers case to another district court due to employee's employment at the original court.
Sklep I R 38/2011
Supreme Court allows transfer of case to another court when a party is employed there as a clerk.
VSRS sklep I R 44/2015
Supreme Court transfers case to another court due to daughter's employment creating apparent bias.
Sklep I R 141/2010
Supreme Court allows delegation of probate proceedings due to judge's dual role creating impartiality doubts.
VSM sklep I Kr 20750/2016
Higher court dismisses transfer of jurisdiction request based on defendant's lawyer's frequent court appearances.

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 tem pritožbenem postopku se določi Višje sodišče v Y.

[JEDRO]

Okoliščina, da je pritožnica zaposlena na Višjem sodišču v X., pomeni tehten razlog iz 68. člena ZPP. Navedeno dejstvo utegne pri nasprotni stranki povzročiti dvom v nepristranskost sojenja.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Dedinja v navedenem zapuščinskem postopku A. M. je vložila pritožbo zoper sklep o dedovanju Okrajnega sodišča v X. z dne 20.1.1999, opr. št. D 835/98 na krajevno in stvarno pristojno Višje sodišče v X..

Vodja Oddelka za civilno sodstvo Višjega sodišča v X. predlaga Vrhovnemu sodišču Republike Slovenije, naj na podlagi 68. člena ZPP za odločanje določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče. V predlogu ugotavlja, da je pritožnica A. M. vodja strojepisnice na Višjem sodišču v X., kar bi lahko vzbudilo dvom v nepristranskost odločanja.

Predlog je utemeljen.

Po 68. členu Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije na predlog stranke ali pristojnega sodišča določi, da naj postopa v posamezni zadevi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, če za to obstajajo tehtni razlogi.

Okoliščina, da je pritožnica zaposlena na Višjem sodišču v X., pomeni tehten razlog iz 68. člena ZPP. Navedeno dejstvo utegne pri nasprotni stranki povzročiti dvom v nepristranskost sojenja.