Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 117/2002 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2002:I.R.117.2002 AI generated

Court of Appeal delegates jurisdiction to another court due to judge's employment conflict under ZPP Art. 67.

Case Number Sklep I R 117/2002
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia delegated jurisdiction to a different competent court upon the request of the District Court. The plaintiff was employed as the head of the president's office at the very court that was originally assigned to hear the case. The court ruled that this employment relationship constituted a significant reason for transferring the case to avoid potential bias.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure; The court may delegate jurisdiction to another competent court when it is evident that the proceedings will be conducted more easily or when other significant reasons exist, such as a conflict of interest arising from the judge's employment at the assigned court.

Keywords

AI generated
delegation of jurisdiction conflict of interest Code of Civil Procedure employment conflict competent court transfer

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPP)
AI generated
Sklep I R 43/99
Supreme Court transfers case to another district court due to employee's long-term local employment.
Sklep I R 39/2005
Supreme Court transfers case to another court due to employee's employment at the original court causing perceived bias.
Sklep I R 27/2001
Supreme Court transfers case to another court because a defendant works at the current court.
Sklep I R 34/2005
Supreme Court dismisses appeal when plaintiff is a judge at the originally competent court.
Sklep I R 40/2001
Supreme Court transfers non-litigation case to nearest court due to judge's employment bias.

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

Za odločanje v tej zadevi se določi Okrajno sodišče v ...

[JEDRO]

Dejstvo, da je tožnica na manjšem sodišču zaposlena v uradu predsednika sodišča, ki bi moral zadevo tudi obravnavati, predstavlja tehten razlog za delegacijo pristojnosti po 67. členu ZPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Okrajno sodišče v ..., pri katerem je med pravdnima strankama v teku postopek zaradi plačila tolarske protivrednosti za 2.000 DEM, je dne 6.11.2002 predlagalo, naj Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije določi za obravnavanje zadeve drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče. Kot razlog je navedlo dejstvo, da je tožnica zaposlena kot vodja urada predsednika sodišča, ki bi moral v zadevi izvesti postopek in v njej odločiti.

Predlog je utemeljen.

Vrhovno sodišče lahko na predlog stranke ali pristojnega sodišča 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.

Dejstvo, da je tožnica na manjšem sodišču zaposlena v uradu predsednika sodišča, ki bi moral zadevo tudi obravnavati, predstavlja tehten razlog za delegacijo pristojnosti po 67. členu ZPP. Zato je Vrhovno sodišče predlogu ugodilo in odločilo, da se bo postopek opravil pri Okrajnem sodišču v ...