Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 99/2002 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2002:I.R.99.2002 AI generated

Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction based on lawyer's past knowledge of judges as no impartiality issue.

Case Number Sklep I R 99/2002
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 jurisdiction to a different court. The defendant argued that the plaintiff, a retired lawyer, knew the judges in the original case, potentially compromising impartiality. The court held that mere acquaintance between a lawyer and judges does not constitute a valid ground for transferring jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku, 67. člen: Familiarity between a lawyer and judges does not constitute a valid ground for transferring jurisdiction or raise doubts about judicial impartiality.

Keywords

AI generated
transfer of jurisdiction judicial impartiality retired lawyer code of civil procedure removal of judge procedural objection slovenian law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
67. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
AI generated
Sklep VIII R 2/2007
Court rejects request to transfer case to another court based on subjective dissatisfaction with proceedings.
Sklep I R 121/2008
Supreme Court rejects request to transfer jurisdiction based on general dissatisfaction with court rulings in other cases.
VSRS Sklep I R 3/2025
Supreme Court transfers case jurisdiction due to clerk's familial tie to opposing party causing impartiality doubts.
Sklep I R 64/99
Supreme Court rejects delegation of jurisdiction request based on unrelated procedural errors in prior proceedings.
VSRS sklep I R 94/2015
Supreme Court dismisses jurisdiction transfer request after final judgment, noting no legal interest exists.

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, da se za postopanje v tej zadevi določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, se ne ugodi.

[JEDRO]

Dejstvo, da tožnika kot odvetnika v pokoju sodniki poznajo, ne more predstavljati ovire za nemoten potek postopka.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

V tej zadevi je bilo s sodbo Temeljnega sodišča v Kranju, enote v Kranju opr. št. P 29/84 z dne 11.2.1987 v zvezi s sodbo Višjega sodišča v Ljubljani opr. št. II Cp 1585/86 pravnomočno razsojeno, da morata toženca nerazdelno plačati tožniku 1.182.010 din z zamudnimi obrestmi. Prvi toženec, ki sicer navaja drugo opravilno številko drugostopenjske sodbe, je pri Okrajnem sodišču v Trebnjem vložil predlog za obnovo postopka. V njem predlaga, naj se prenese pristojnost na to sodišče, ker ima tožnik kot nekdanji odvetnik na sodišču v Kranju in drugod še vedno stanovske kolege in prijatelje, v katerih nepristranost odločanja utemeljeno dvomi.

S tem toženec predlaga delegacijo pristojnosti na Okrajno sodišče v Trebnjem.

Predlog ni utemeljen.

Dejstvo, da tožnika kot odvetnika v pokoju sodniki poznajo, ne more predstavljati ovire za nemoten potek postopka. To tudi ni razlog, da bi bilo mogoče dvomiti v nepristranost sodnikov (kar je sicer lahko le podlaga za izločitev konkretnega sodnika, ne pa za delegacijo pristojnosti). Sodniki pri opravljanju svojega dela vsakodnevno komunicirajo z odvetniki in to je nujno povezano tako z delom sodnikov, kot tudi odvetnikov. Vendar to samo po sebi ne predstavlja nobene motnje v delu sodišča. Zato razlogi po 67. členu Zakona o pravdnem postopku niso podani.