Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 74/2003 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2003:I.R.74.2003 AI generated

Supreme Court transfers jurisdiction to Ptuj District Court due to the plaintiff's employment there and the defendant's liability. The court ruled that the plaintiff's employment at the court where the defendant is liable constitutes a significant reason for transferring jurisdiction. The Supreme Court decided to transfer the case to the Ptuj District Court because the plaintiff is employed there and the defendant is liable for damages arising from work performed at the Celje District Court. The court held that the plaintiff's employment at the court where the defendant is liable constitutes a significant reason for transferring jurisdiction. The Supreme Court decided to transfer the case to the Ptuj District Court because the plaintiff is employed there and the defendant is liable for damages arising from work performed at the Celje District Court. The court held that the plaintiff's employment at the court where the defendant is liable constitutes a significant reason for transferring jurisdiction.

Case Number Sklep I R 74/2003
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 jurisdiction from the Celje District Court to the Ptuj District Court regarding a claim for compensation against the court itself. The plaintiff, an employee of the Ptuj court, sued the Celje court for damages sustained while working there, prompting the Celje court to request a transfer. The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff's employment at the Ptuj court and the defendant's liability as that court's insurer constituted a significant reason to transfer the case.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

67. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku; If a plaintiff is employed at a court where the defendant is liable for damages arising from work performed there, the court may transfer jurisdiction to that plaintiff's employer court as a significant reason for easier proceedings.

Keywords

AI generated
transfer of jurisdiction employee of court liability of court significant reason ZPP article 67 district court workplace injury

Cited Legislation

AI generated
67. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP)
AI generated
VSRS Sklep III R 24/2022
Supreme Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction request based on alleged judicial bias and lack of natural judge rights.
Sklep III R 34/2007
Supreme Court rejects request for court transfer due to alleged bias, citing lack of legal basis and exhaustion of remedies.
Sklep I R 83/2006
Supreme Court allows transfer of case due to multiple judges' recusal requests raising public impartiality doubts.
VSRS Sklep I R 83/2016
Supreme Court delegates jurisdiction to Kranj due to potential bias of Ljubljana court against defendant's brother.
VSRS Sklep I R 165/2022
Supreme Court rejects delegation request due to lack of impartiality doubts despite shared building and daily contact.

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 Okrožno sodišče na Ptuju.

[JEDRO]

Okoliščina, da se bo v pravdi odločalo o odškodninski odgovornosti zavarovanca tožene stranke, to je Okrožnega sodišča v Celju, je tako tehten razlog, da v tej zadevi ne sodi Okrožno sodišče v Celju, da je bilo treba predlogu za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča ugoditi.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožnik R. Đ. je zoper toženca - zavarovalnico vložil tožbo zaradi plačila odškodnine 4.852.800 SIT. Stvarno in krajevno pristojno Okrožno sodišče v Celju je predlagalo, da se za sojenje v tej zadevi določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče.

Predlog je utemeljen.

Po 67. členu Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP, Ur. l. RS, št. 26/99 in 96/2002) je mogoče opraviti prenos pristojnosti s stvarno in krajevno pristojnega sodišča na drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, če je očitno, da se bo tako laže izvedel postopek ali čew so za to podani drugi tehtni razlogi. V obravnavani zadevi je izkazano, da je tožnik zaposlen pri sodišču, v katerega pristojnost spada predmetni spor. Ta pa se nanaša na plačilo odškodnine zoper toženo zavarovalnico, pri kateri ima to sodišče zavarovano civilno odgovornost. Gre za spor o plačilu odškodnine za škodo, ki je tožniku kot delavcu nastala v zvezi z delom pri delodajalcu - Okrožnem sodišču v Celju.

Okoliščina, da se bo v pravdi odločalo o odškodninski odgovornosti zavarovanca tožene stranke, to je Okrožnega sodišča v Celju, je tako tehten razlog, da v tej zadevi ne sodi Okrožno sodišče v Celju, da je bilo treba predlogu za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča ugoditi. Vrhovno sodišče je zato na podlagi 67. člena ZPP odločilo, da bo postopek vodilo in odločalo v tej stvari sicer krajevno nepristojno, vendar stvarno pristojno Okrožno sodišče na Ptuju.