Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 11/2000 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2000:I.R.11.2000 AI generated

Supreme Court rejects request to transfer case due to unproven judge-client relationship claims.

Case Number Sklep I R 11/2000
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 dismissed the plaintiff's request to transfer the case to another court. The plaintiff alleged that a judge was related to the opposing counsel and the defendant, claiming this compromised judicial impartiality. The court rejected this argument because the lower court judge denied the relationship, the opposing counsel did not represent the plaintiff, and the defendant was not a party to the proceedings.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

67. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku; A request to transfer a case to another court on grounds of potential bias must be substantiated by proven facts, and mere allegations of familial ties without evidence or actual representation by the opposing party do not justify such a transfer.

Keywords

AI generated
transfer of jurisdiction judicial impartiality family relationship conflict of interest Zakon o pravdnem postopku opinion of the Supreme Court procedural objection

Cited Legislation

AI generated
67. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
AI generated
Sklep I R 87/2005
Doubt about judges' impartiality grounds for recusal, not for transferring jurisdiction to another court.
VSRS Sklep I R 48/2019
Supreme Court orders transfer of case to ensure objective impartiality when judge is spouse of opposing party.
Sklep I R 38/2000
Supreme Court transfers jurisdiction to another court due to a judge's familial relationship with the plaintiff under ZPP Art. 67.
VSRS Sklep I R 10/2025
Court rejects jurisdiction delegation request based on clerical staff's role and lack of close ties to judges.
Sklep III R 27/2008
Siblings of a witness and judge do not objectively undermine public trust in court impartiality.

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

Predlog tožeče stranke J. P., da v zadevi postopa drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Okoliščine, zaradi katerih je predlagana delegacija, niso izkazane.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožnik v svojem predlogu za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča navaja, da Š.K. in njegove sorodnike v nekaterih postopkih zastopa odvetnik Z.R. iz ... Sodnica Okrajnega sodišča v ... D.R. je žena odvetnika Z.R. in sorodnica Š.K. Zaradi tega pri Okrajnem sodišču v ... ni mogoče zagotoviti objektivnosti in pravičnosti sojenja. Višjemu sodišču v Ljubljani predlaga, da določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče.

Okrajno sodišče v ... je predložilo zadevo v reševanje Vrhovnemu sodišču Republike Slovenije, ki je na podlagi 67. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku pristojno za odločanje o predlogu.

Okrajna sodnica svetnica D.R. navaja, da pravdnih zadev ne rešuje. Odvetnik Z.R., ki je njen mož, v tej zadevi ne zastopa tožeče stranke. O kakšni sorodstveni povezavi s Š.K. ji ni nič znanega.

Predlog ni utemeljen.

Noben od razlogov, na katere se sklicuje tožnik v svojem predlogu za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča, ni izkazan. V pravdni zadevi opr. št. P 128/98 Okrajnega sodišča v ... zastopa tožence odvetnik V.N. Sodnica svetnica D.R. ne vodi te zadeve in ni v sorodu s Š.K., ki tudi ni stranka v tem postopku. Zato ni nobenega razloga, zaradi katerega bi se postopek laže opravil pri drugem sodišču (67. člen ZPP).