Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 10/2000 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2000:I.R.10.2000 AI generated

Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses request for change of court due to unproven conflict of interest claims.

Case Number Sklep I R 10/2000
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the plaintiff's request to transfer the case to another court on grounds of potential conflict of interest. The plaintiff alleged that the presiding judge was related to the defendant's lawyer, but the lower court found no evidence of such a relationship or involvement. Consequently, the court ruled that the original proceedings remained valid and no transfer was necessary.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

67. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku; A request for a change of court based on alleged conflicts of interest is dismissed when the specific circumstances and relationships are not substantiated by evidence.

Keywords

AI generated
conflict of interest change of court Zakon o pravdnem postopku procedural objection judicial impartiality evidence burden transfer of proceedings

Cited Legislation

AI generated
67. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
AI generated
Sklep I R 112/2008
Supreme Court allows transfer of case to another court due to judge's participation as party affecting public perception of neutrality.
Sklep I R 29/2006
Slovenian Supreme Court allows transfer of case to another court due to judge's potential bias.
Sklep I Pr 48/92
Court dismisses case against a judge due to conflict of interest and lack of impartiality.
Sklep I R 31/97
Supreme Court allows transfer of case to another court due to judge's relative to plaintiff's family member.
VSRS Sklep I R 17/2023
Supreme Court transfers case to Ljubljana due to perceived bias from former superior court judge's wife.

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 209/97 pri Okrajnem sodišču v ... zastopa toženca 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).