Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep III R 5/2009 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2009:III.R.5.2009 AI generated

Supreme Court allows transfer of business lease termination case to ensure judicial impartiality.

Case Number Sklep III R 5/2009
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 ordered the transfer of a business lease termination case to a different territorial court. The plaintiff argued that the current court's judges were biased due to their proximity to the disputed commercial spaces. The court found that potential doubts about judicial impartiality constituted a sufficient reason to change the venue under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure; A transfer of jurisdiction is permitted when the current court's location creates obvious doubts about the objectivity of the judges, constituting a significant reason to ensure a fair trial.

Keywords

AI generated
judicial impartiality transfer of jurisdiction business lease termination Code of Civil Procedure venue selection bias concerns Slovenian law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSRS Sklep I R 196/2018
Supreme Court dismisses jurisdiction objection when a party is a judge at the hearing court due to impartiality doubts.
VSRS Sklep I R 19/2022
Court transfers case to Krško because plaintiff's long employment at Maribor court creates impartiality doubts.
Sklep I R 72/2002
Supreme Court assigns jurisdiction to Škofja Loka District Court due to conflict of interest involving the defendant.
VSRS Sklep I R 155/2021
Supreme Court transfers jurisdiction to ensure impartiality when creditor's brother works at the same court as enforcement officer.
Sklep I R 168/2010
Supreme Court transfers case from Ljubljana to Kranj court due to public perception of impartiality concerns.

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 ....

[JEDRO]

Odločanje o tožbenem zahtevku za odpoved najemne pogodbe glede poslovnih prostorov, ki jih uporablja pristojno sodišče, je dovolj tehten razlog za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Tožeča stranka predlaga določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča, ki naj odloči v zadevi. Predlog utemeljuje s tem, da ima v poslovnih prostorih, katerih izpraznitev zahteva, prostore Okrajno, Okrožno in Višje sodišče v .... Sodniki navedenih sodišč zato po mnenju tožeče stranke ne bi bili nepristranski.

2. Po določbi 67. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) lahko Vrhovno sodišče na predlog stranke ali pristojnega sodišča določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, da postopa v zadevi, če je očitno, da se bo tako laže opravil postopek, ali če so za to drugi tehtni razlogi.

3. Odločanje Okrožnega sodišča v ... o tožbenem zahtevku za odpoved najemne pogodbe glede poslovnih prostorov, ki jih uporablja pristojno sodišče, bi pri strankah in širši javnosti utegnilo vzbuditi dvom v objektivno nepristranskost sodišča, kar je dovolj tehten razlog za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča. Vrhovno sodišče je zato predlogu ugodilo in za odločanje v zadevi določilo Okrožno sodišče v ....