Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 44/2005 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2005:I.R.44.2005 AI generated

Personal relationship between judge and party is exclusionary but not a valid reason for judicial delegation.

Case Number Sklep I R 44/2005
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 applicant's request to transfer a civil case to a different competent court. Although the assigned judges had personal relationships with the parties due to their children being in the other party's care, the court found this insufficient to justify delegation. The court ruled that while such relationships are generally exclusionary grounds, they do not constitute a valid reason for transferring jurisdiction under the relevant procedural law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), 67. člen; 6. točka 70. člena ZPP: A personal relationship between a judge and a party is an exclusionary ground for participation but does not justify the delegation of jurisdiction to another court.

Keywords

AI generated
judicial delegation personal relationship exclusionary ground competent court Zakon o pravdnem postopku judicial impartiality transfer of jurisdiction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
67. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
6. točka 70. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku
AI generated
Sklep I R 87/2005
Doubt about judges' impartiality grounds for recusal, not for transferring jurisdiction to another court.
Sklep I R 63/2001
Supreme Court transfers divorce case to another district court due to judge's conflict of interest.
Sklep I R 38/2000
Supreme Court transfers jurisdiction to another court due to a judge's familial relationship with the plaintiff under ZPP Art. 67.
Sklep III R 27/2008
Siblings of a witness and judge do not objectively undermine public trust in court impartiality.
VSRS Sklep I R 25/2018
Spousal relationship between plaintiff and judge justifies transfer of jurisdiction to another court.

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 se ne ugodi.

[JEDRO]

Določeno razmerje sodnika in stranke je načeloma lahko izločitveni razlog, ne more pa predstavljati razloga za "smotrno" delegacijo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Okrajno sodišče v A. je predlagalo določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča za odločanje v pravdni zadevi. Po letnem razporedu sta določena za odločanje v pravdnih zadevah okrajna sodnika A. A. in B. B. (naravni sodnik v konkretni pravdni zadevi), oba sodnika pa imata svoja otroka v varstvu pri drugi toženi stranki in zato o pravdni zadevi ne moreta odločati. Okrajno sodišče A. ima s prvotoženo stranko sklenjeno letno pogodbo o preventivnih pregledih delavcev okrajnega sodišča. Trem sodnicam, ki odločajo o prekrških in nimajo izkušenj s sojenjem na civilnem področju, zadeve ni možno dodeliti, ostali dve sodnici pa na civilnem področju nimata izkušenj. Predlagateljevo stališče je, da je zaradi občutljivosti zadeve in izključitve vseh dvomov v zvezi z odločanjem potrebno določiti drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče in tam izkušenega civilnega sodnika, ki bo zadevo obravnaval.

Predlog ni utemeljen.

Pomisleki predlagatelja v zvezi s sojenjem v konkretni pravdni zadevi ne predstavljajo tehtnih razlogov za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča po 67. členu Zakona o pravdnem postopku. Določeno razmerje sodnika in stranke je načeloma lahko izločitveni razlog (6. točka 70. člena ZPP), ne more pa predstavljati razloga za t.im.

smotrno delegacijo pristojnosti.