Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 27/2000 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2000:I.R.27.2000 AI generated

Supreme Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction request due to lack of statutory grounds under ZPP Art. 67.

Case Number Sklep I R 27/2000
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 defendant's request to transfer the case to another competent court. The defendant argued that the current court was biased, but failed to provide specific factual circumstances justifying a transfer under Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court ruled that without evidence of procedural inefficiency or other significant reasons, the statutory conditions for transferring jurisdiction were not met.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act; A transfer of jurisdiction to another competent court is only permissible when there are clear circumstances indicating that the proceedings would be conducted more easily or other significant reasons exist, which the defendant failed to substantiate.

Keywords

AI generated
transfer of jurisdiction competent court Civil Procedure Act procedural efficiency defendant's request statutory conditions lack of evidence

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VDS sklep Psp 255/2002
Social court has jurisdiction over employer liability claims for disability benefits under ZPIZ Art. 282. ZDSS Art. 2.5.
Sklep I R 13/96
Supreme Court dismisses delegation request where personal acquaintance of parties does not constitute a weighty reason for easier proceedings.
Sklep I R 4/2007
Supreme Court transfers case to Ljubljana court due to prior misconduct by Celja judge affecting impartiality perception.
VSC sklep Cpg 198/00
Appeal court quashes first instance ruling on jurisdiction for interim orders in administrative debt cases.
VDSS Sklep Pdp 643/2019
Appeal dismissed; removal dispute is corporate, not labor, so general court has jurisdiction.

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

Predlogu za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča se ne ugodi.

[JEDRO]

Presoja obstoja okoliščin iz 67. člena ZPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Pri Okrožnem sodišču v Celju je v teku pravda med tožnikom in tožencem zaradi plačila odškodnine. Tožnik je tožbo vložil dne 20.5.1993. O zadevi še ni bilo odločeno. Dne 28.4.2000 pa je toženec podal predlog, naj vrhovno sodišče za sojenje v tej stvari določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče v državi. Toženec je namreč mnenja, "da sodišče odloča ves čas v njegovo škodo."

Predlog ni utemeljen.

Po določbi 67. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku lahko vrhovno sodišče na strankin predlog 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. Toženec pa v svoji vlogi ne navaja nobenih okoliščin, ki bi mogle pogojevati uporabo navedene zakonske določbe in utemeljevati določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča. Trditev o tem, da sodišče odloča v njegovo škodo, je pravno in vsebinsko prazna in tudi ne temelji na podatkih spisa. Ker ni na razpolago pogojev, zaradi katerih bi bilo mogoče določiti za sojenje drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, vrhovno sodišče predlogu ni ugodilo.