Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 131/2008 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2008:I.R.131.2008 AI generated

Appeal dismissed: sibling relationship of judge not sufficient grounds for recusal under ZPP Art. 67.

Case Number Sklep I R 131/2008
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 applicant's request to transfer jurisdiction to another court. The applicant argued that the defendant was the brother of the presiding judge, who also served as the court's vice-president. The court held that this familial relationship does not constitute a valid ground for delegating jurisdiction under Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act because the decision was made by a natural judge free from the vice-president's influence.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act; A sibling relationship between a party and the presiding judge, who is also the court's vice-president, does not constitute a valid ground for delegating jurisdiction if the decision is made by a natural and independent judge.

Keywords

AI generated
Civil Procedure Act delegation of jurisdiction sibling relationship presiding judge court vice-president natural judge impartiality

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act (ZPP)
AI generated
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 25/2018
Spousal relationship between plaintiff and judge justifies transfer of jurisdiction to another court.
Sklep I R 65/2005
Court dismisses case against judge due to impartiality concerns and transfers jurisdiction to another court.
Sklep I R 110/2008
Supreme Court delegates case to another court due to conflict of interest involving a judge as a party.
Sklep I Pr 7/93
Court allows transfer of civil case jurisdiction due to criminal proceedings against the plaintiff involving same court judges.

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 se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Okoliščina, da je stranka postopka brat sodnice za postopanje pristojnega sodišča, ki je tudi podpredsednica sodišča, ni tehten razlog za delegacijo pristojnosti. Odločanje je v postopku pridržano naravnemu in neodvisnemu sodniku, na katerega nima (pod)predsednik sodišča nobenega vpliva.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Za odločanje v tej zadevi pristojno sodišče je, sklicujoč se na določbo 67. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), vrhovnemu sodišču predlagalo določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča za postopanje in odločanje, v predlogu pa navedlo, da je toženec A. A. brat okrožne sodnice svetnice B. B., ki je tudi podpredsednica Okrožnega sodišča v D.

Predlog ni utemeljen.

Okoliščina, da je stranka postopka brat sodnice za postopanje pristojnega sodišča, ki je tudi podpredsednica sodišča, ni tehten razlog za delegacijo pristojnosti v pomenu določbe 67. člena ZPP, saj pri strankah ne more (in ga očitno tudi ni) vzbuditi utemeljenega dvoma o nevtralnosti in neodvisnosti stvarno in krajevno pristojnega sodišča kot nosilca sodne funkcije ali sicer v dojemanju zunanjega videza teh postulatov poštenega sojenja. Odločanje je v postopku pridržano naravnemu in neodvisnemu sodniku, na katerega nima (pod)predsednik sodišča nobenega vpliva, medtem ko ima s postopkom in odločitvijo sodišča morda nezadovoljna stranka na razpolago za tak primer predvidena pravna sredstva. Neutemeljen predlog je zato bilo treba zavrniti.