Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I R 36/2005 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2005:I.R.36.2005 AI generated

Employment at the deciding court does not automatically justify transferring jurisdiction under ZPP Art. 67.

Case Number Sklep I R 36/2005
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 request to transfer jurisdiction to another court. The defendant, an employee of the deciding court, argued that her position as a typist and familiarity with judges warranted a transfer under Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court held that while employment at the court is a relevant factor, it does not automatically constitute a weighty reason for delegation, especially in larger courts where the risk of bias is primarily addressed by recusal rules.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 67 ZPP; Art. 70-74 ZPP: Employment of a party at the deciding court may justify a transfer of jurisdiction, but such a circumstance alone does not constitute a weighty reason for delegation in larger courts, as potential bias is primarily resolved through recusal institutions.

Keywords

AI generated
transfer of jurisdiction Code of Civil Procedure employee of the court weighty reason recusal institutions impartiality of judges delegation of competence

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 67 ZPP
Art. 70-74 ZPP
AI generated
VSRS Sklep III R 8/2025
Court transfers bankruptcy case jurisdiction due to employee's employment at the original court creating appearance of bias.
Sklep I R 29/95
Supreme Court delegates case to Radovljica District Court for procedural efficiency under ZPP Art. 68.
VSRS sklep I R 148/2015
Appeal court jurisdiction shifted to Ljubljana due to potential bias from a local judge being a party. Appeal court jurisdiction shifted to Ljubljana due to potential bias from a local judge being a party.
Sklep I R 35/2001
Supreme Court assigns case to Nov Mesto Court due to judge conflict and proximity rules.
Sklep I R 7/2000
Supreme Court transfers case to Ljubljana court due to employee bias concerns and economic efficiency.

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]

Okoliščina, da je pravdna stranka zaposlena pri sodišču, ki odloča o sporu, je lahko pomembna za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča, vendar je potrebno pri odločanju o predlogu pretehtati okoliščine vsakega posameznega primera.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Okrožno sodišče v Celju je predlagalo določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča po 67. členu Zakona o pravdnem postopku. Tožena stranka je namreč zaposlena pri predlagajočem sodišču kot strojepiska in jo večina sodnikov bolj ali manj dobro pozna. Zato naj bi obstajali tehtni razlogi, da se za odločanje v tej pravdni zadevi določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče.

Predlog ni utemeljen.

Okoliščina, da je stranka v pravdnem postopku zaposlena pri sodišču, ki odloča o sporu, je sicer načeloma lahko utemeljen razlog za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča. Vendar pa je potrebno pri odločanju o predlogu pretehtati okoliščine vsakega posamičnega primera. Problem dvoma o nepristranskosti sodnika (zaradi določenega posebnega položaja stranke v postopku) v prvi vrsti rešuje institut izločitve (70. - 74. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku - ZPP).

Delegacija pristojnosti je v tovrstnih primerih ustrezen ukrep predvsem takrat, kadar je pristojno sodišče z manjšim številom sodnikov. Okrožno sodišče v Celju je (po številu sodnikov) med večjimi sodišči v državi in zato okoliščina, da je toženka strojepiska pri sodišču, sama po sebi ne predstavlja tehtnega razloga v smislu 67. člena ZPP.