Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 9/2000 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2000:I.R.9.2000 AI generated

Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses request for transfer of case due to unproven conflict of interest.

Case Number Sklep I R 9/2000
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 opposing party's request to transfer the case to a different competent court. The petitioner alleged a conflict of interest because the district court judge was the wife of the lawyer representing the opposing party. The court found this claim unsubstantiated as the lawyer did not represent the parties in the current proceedings and the judge had no knowledge of any familial connection to the plaintiff. Consequently, the court ruled that no grounds existed under Article 67 of the Act on Civil Procedure Law to transfer the case.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Act on Civil Procedure Law; A request to transfer a case to another court due to alleged conflict of interest is dismissed when the alleged relationship is unproven and the lawyer in question does not represent the parties in the current proceedings.

Keywords

AI generated
conflict of interest transfer of case civil procedure law judge impartiality lawyer representation Slovenian Supreme Court procedural objection

Cited Legislation

AI generated
67. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
AI generated
VSRS Sklep I R 6/2025
Appeal dismissed: personal ties to court staff do not justify transfer of jurisdiction under ZPP Art. 67.
Sklep I R 10/2000
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses request for change of court due to unproven conflict of interest claims.
Sklep I R 135/2005
Supreme Court rejects delegation request due to procedural conclusion and principle of economic efficiency.
Sklep III R 27/2008
Siblings of a witness and judge do not objectively undermine public trust in court impartiality.
VSM Sklep I Kr 42425/2018
Higher court transfers criminal jurisdiction to ensure appearance of impartiality when judge is department head.

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 nasprotnega udeleženca J. P., da v zadevi postopa drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Okoliščine, zaradi katerih je predlagana delegacija, niso izkazane.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Nasprotni udeleženec v svojem predlogu za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča navaja, da Š.K. in njegovo sorodstvo, ki so stranke v tem postopku, 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 Radovljici 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 nepravdnih zadev ne rešuje. Odvetnik Z.R., ki je njen mož, v tej zadevi ne zastopa nobene od strank. O kakšni sorodstveni povezavi s Š.K. ji ni nič znanega.

Predlog ni utemeljen.

Noben od razlogov, na katere se sklicuje nasprotni udeleženec v svojem predlogu za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča, ni izkazan. V nepravdni zadevi opr. št. N 21/96 pri Okrajnem sodišču v ... zastopa predlagatelje odvetnik V.N., ne pa odvetnik Z.R. Sodnica svetnica D.R. ne vodi te zadeve in ni v sorodu s Š.K., ki tudi ni udeleženec v tem postopku. Zato ni nobenega razloga, zaradi katerega bi se postopek laže opravil pri drugem sodišču (67. člen ZPP).