Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 139/2008 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2008:I.R.139.2008 AI generated

Supreme Court rejects request for change of court based solely on dissatisfaction with other cases.

Case Number Sklep I R 139/2008
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 dismissed the plaintiff's motion to transfer the case to a different court. The plaintiff argued that the Piran Court was biased because it had handled other cases involving the plaintiff, but offered no evidence of procedural inefficiency. The court ruled that mere dissatisfaction with prior rulings does not constitute a significant reason under the law to change the assigned court.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Act on Civil Procedure; A party's dissatisfaction with a court's decisions in other matters does not constitute a significant reason for transferring the case when no procedural inefficiency is demonstrated.

Keywords

AI generated
change of court significant reason procedural inefficiency dissatisfaction with rulings civil procedure law court jurisdiction bias allegation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 67 of the Act on Civil Procedure
AI generated
Sklep I Pr 7/93
Court allows transfer of civil case jurisdiction due to criminal proceedings against the plaintiff involving same court judges.
VSRS Sklep I R 48/2019
Supreme Court orders transfer of case to ensure objective impartiality when judge is spouse of opposing party.
VSRS sklep I R 146/2015
Supreme Court transfers case to Maribor court due to plaintiff's employment at defendant court ensuring impartiality.
Sklep I R 19/98
Supreme Court delegates jurisdiction to another district court due to kinship between plaintiff and judge under ZPP Art. 68.
VSRS Sklep I R 209/2023
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses jurisdiction transfer request based solely on dissatisfaction with local court performance.

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]

Tožnik svojega predloga ni argumentiral s trditvami o neekonomičnosti postopka pri piranskem sodišču, tožnikovo nezadovoljstvo z odločitvami sodišča v drugih zadevah pa tudi ne predstavlja tehtnega razloga v skladu z navedeno določbo zakona.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Tožnik je na naroku za glavno obravnavo dne 28.10.2008 predlagal, "da se dodeli drugo stvarno sodišče za odločanje v tem postopku, ker bo le nepristransko sodišče lahko odločilo po zakonu". Iz sodnega zapisnika o navedenem naroku je razvidno, da je tožnik nezadovoljen s sojenjem piranskega sodišča v drugih sodnih zadevah.

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 (67. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku). Tožnik svojega predloga ni argumentiral s trditvami o neekonomičnosti postopka pri piranskem sodišču, tožnikovo nezadovoljstvo z odločitvami sodišča v drugih zadevah pa tudi ne predstavlja tehtnega razloga v skladu z navedeno določbo zakona.