Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 119/2008 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2008:I.R.119.2008 AI generated

Supreme Court rejects delegation request citing lack of clear procedural efficiency or other weighty reasons under ZPP Art. 67.

Case Number Sklep I R 119/2008
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 plaintiff's request to delegate jurisdiction to a different court. The plaintiff argued that local influences from the defendant's family prevented fair proceedings at the Maribor courts over five years. The court held that the presented reasons did not meet the statutory threshold for delegation under Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act; Delegation of jurisdiction is permitted only when proceedings would clearly proceed more easily or due to other weighty reasons, which the plaintiff's allegations of local influence failed to substantiate.

Keywords

AI generated
delegation of jurisdiction Civil Procedure Act procedural efficiency weighty reasons local influence court venue supreme court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VSC Sklep II Ip 129/2024
Appeal dismissed; court fee of 33 EUR does not exceed legal minimum of 44 EUR for legal entities.
Sklep III R 61/2002
Supreme Court assigns appeal to Celje Court due to potential bias from Maribor Court judges who previously decided the case.
VSRS Sklep I R 183/2022
Supreme Court dismisses transfer of jurisdiction due to witness being a judge at the same court.
Sklep I R 4/2000
Supreme Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction request based on opposing counsel being a former judge.
Sklep I R 43/2009
Slovenia Supreme Court dismisses request for transfer of jurisdiction based on perceived unfairness.

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]

Predstavljeni razlogi v nobenem primeru ne predstavljajo razlogov za delegacijo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Tožnik je vložil pritožbo proti sodbi Okrajnega sodišča v Mariboru I P 339/2007 z dne 7.4.2008 in hkrati predlagal delegacijo "tako prvostopnega kakor tudi pritožbenega sodišča". Razlogi za delegacijo naj bi bili podani zato, ker naj bi bile v sklepu Višjega sodišča v Mariboru III Cp 2328/2006 z dne 8.3.2007 "protispisne" ugotovitve, postopek pa naj bi se tudi laže izvedel izven območja navedenega višjega sodišča "ker ima toženka zaradi svojih staršev, ki so krajevni veljaki, lastniki bifeja, takšne zveze, ki vplivajo na normalno odločanje in upoštevanje dejstev na sodiščih na območju Mariboru". Zadeva poteka na mariborskih sodiščih že peto leto, predlagatelj pa dvomi v pravilnost sodnih odločitev.

Predlog ni utemeljen.

2. Vrhovno sodišče lahko na predlog stranke 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(1). V predlogu predstavljeni razlogi v nobenem primeru ne predstavljajo razlogov za delegacijo v skladu z določbo 67. člena ZPP in je zato Vrhovno sodišče tožnikov predlog zavrnilo(2).

---.---

Op. št. (1): Primerjaj 67. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku - ZPP. Op. št. (2): Primerjaj Lojze Ude in drugi avtorji: Zakon o pravdnem postopku s komentarjem, 1. knjiga - komentar 67. člena.