Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 126/2002 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2002:I.R.126.2002 AI generated

Supreme Court transfers possession disturbance case to Maribor branch due to close family ties with court staff.

Case Number Sklep I R 126/2002
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 Slovenia transferred the possession disturbance case to the Maribor branch of the District Court. The plaintiff requested the removal of all judges at the original court, citing that his daughter works there as a staff member and knows the judges personally. The court ruled that this close familial relationship constitutes a significant reason under Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure to ensure a fairer trial.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure; A close familial relationship between a party and a court staff member working at the competent court constitutes a significant reason for transferring jurisdiction to ensure a fairer proceeding.

Keywords

AI generated
possession disturbance transfer of jurisdiction close family ties court staff relationship fair trial assurance Code of Civil Procedure removal of judges

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure
AI generated
Sklep I R 70/2012
Appeal dismissed: Mother of judge's assistant not a valid reason for transferring jurisdiction under ZPP Art. 67.
VSRS Sklep I R 31/2024
Supreme Court grants jurisdiction transfer due to perceived bias from judge's daughter working on same court.
Sklep I R 110/2002
Supreme Court transfers proceedings to another court due to potential bias from plaintiff being a judge in the same building.
VSRS Sklep I R 51/2024
Supreme Court transfers civil case jurisdiction from Ljubljana to Celje due to perceived lack of impartiality.
Sklep I R 64/2008
Supreme Court rejects court's own request for transfer due to perceived bias, ruling only parties can raise such doubts.

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 pravdni zadevi se določi Okrajno sodišče v Mariboru.

[JEDRO]

Okoliščina o bližnjem sorodstvenem razmerju pravdne stranke s strokovno sodelavko, ki dela pri krajevno pristojnem sodišču, predstavlja tehten razlog iz 67. člena ZPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožnik je pri krajevno pristojnem Okrajnem sodišču v ... vložil tožbo zaradi motenja posesti, istočasno pa tudi predlagal izločitev vseh sodnikov tega sodišča. Ta predlog je glede na njegovo vsebino vrhovno sodišče obravnavalo kot predlog za prenos pristojnosti. Okrajno sodišče v ... je ob predložitvi zadeve potrdilo, da je hči obeh tožencev redno zaposlena pri njih kot strokovna sodelavka in da pri tem sodišču dela manjše število sodnikov in strokovnih sodelavcev, ki se osebno poznajo, vsakodnevno srečujejo in medsebojno kontaktirajo.

Predlog je utemeljen.

Vrhovno sodišče lahko po 67. členu ZPP 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. Okoliščina o bližnjem sorodstvenem razmerju pravdne stranke s strokovno sodelavko, ki dela pri krajevno pristojnem sodišču, tudi po presoji vrhovnega sodišča predstavlja tehten razlog iz navedene zakonske določbe. Zato je predlogu ugodilo in za odločanje v tej pravdni zadevi določilo Okrajno sodišče v Mariboru.