Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 104/2004 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2004:I.R.104.2004 AI generated

Unfounded request to transfer jurisdiction under ZPP Art. 67 dismissed due to lack of argumentation.

Case Number Sklep I R 104/2004
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 the case to a different competent court. The defendant argued for a venue change under Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure but provided no specific reasons or factual basis for the transfer. The court ruled that without concrete arguments demonstrating easier proceedings or other significant reasons, the request lacks the necessary foundation for a transfer decision.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure; A request by a party to transfer a case to another competent court is only valid if the party provides specific arguments demonstrating that the transfer would facilitate the proceedings or is based on other significant reasons.

Keywords

AI generated
Code of Civil Procedure jurisdiction transfer competent court lack of argumentation procedural request venue change significant reasons

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPP)
AI generated
VSRS Sklep I R 149/2025
Plaintiff's request for jurisdiction transfer based solely on residence change is dismissed as it bypasses ZPP rules.
VSRS Sklep I R 174/2019
Appeal court rejected request to transfer case after first instance judgment was annulled.
VSRS Sklep I R 185/2024
Supreme Court transfers guardianship case to Maribor court for easier hearing of hospitalized patient.
VSL Sklep IV Cp 1326/2017
Appeal dismissed; SMS messages insufficient to prove ongoing family violence requiring extended protective measures.
VSRS sklep I R 111/2015
Appeal dismissed: Alleged judicial misconduct and discrimination do not justify transfer of jurisdiction under CPLA Art. 67.

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]

Neargumentirani predlog stranke ne predstavlja zadostne podlage za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Toženec je na naroku za glavno obravnavo 9.9.2004 zahteval "izločitev celotnega Okrožnega sodišča v Novem mestu". Njegov pooblaščenec je na zahtevo sodišča dne 21.10.2004 v pisni vlogi pojasnil, da predstavlja toženčeva zahteva predlog, da se za sojenje določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče v smislu 67. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP, Ur. l. RS, št. 36/04 - uradno prečiščeno besedilo).

Toženčev predlog ni utemeljen.

Vrhovno sodišče lahko na predlog stranke določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, da postopa v zadevi, če je očitno, da se bo tako lažje opravil postopek ali če so za to drugi tehtni razlogi. Toženec v zvezi s predpostavkami določitve drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča (lažja izvedba postopka oziroma drugi tehtni razlogi) ni postavil nikakršnih določnih trditev. Predlog je popolnoma neargumentiran in že zato ni podlage za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča.