Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
Sklep I R 58/98 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1999:I.R.58.98 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction due to judges' personal knowledge of parties in civil disputes.

Numero d'incarto Sklep I R 58/98
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Slovenia (SI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the District Court of Maribor's request to transfer jurisdiction to another court. The District Court argued that all judges on the panel personally knew the defendant, as they were former co-apprentices, except for one who was the defendant's friend. The Court held that judges must remain capable of objective decision-making in all cases, including civil ones, despite knowing a party, and noted that the concern only affected a fraction of the judges handling economic disputes.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 6, point 106 of the Courts Act: The Supreme Court may transfer jurisdiction only if there are significant reasons, but judges must remain capable of objective decision-making even if they know a party.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
transfer of jurisdiction personal knowledge of parties objective decision-making civil procedure supreme court review difetto di legittimazione del ministero pubblico ricusazione del pubblico ministero protesto

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act (ZPP)
Article 6, point 106 of the Courts Act (ZS)
Generato dall'IA
Sklep I R 22/2011
Supreme Court transfers civil damages case to another district court due to alleged judicial bias in the original court.
Sklep I R 106/2007
Slovenian Supreme Court rejects transfer of jurisdiction due to acquaintance between judges, upholding impartiality duty.
Sklep I R 81/2007
Personal acquaintance with a judge does not justify transferring jurisdiction under ZPP Art. 67.
VSRS Sklep I R 129/2015
Supreme Court transfers case to another court to ensure objective impartiality due to judge's family ties to plaintiffs.
VSM Sklep I Cp 393/2024
Appeal allowed; court ruled lower court lacked jurisdiction after plaintiff failed to object to jurisdiction.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Predlog za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Sodniki morajo biti sposobni objektivno odločati o vseh sporih, zlasti še o premoženjskopravnih, čeprav poznajo eno ali drugo pravdno stranko.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožeča stranka je vložila tožbo, s katero od tožnika zahteva plačilo preveč plačanega denarja iz naslova poslov prokurista. Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru, ki naj bi v sporu odločalo, je predlagalo prenos pristojnosti na drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, ker je menilo, da gre za tehtne razloge. Navedlo je, da vsi sodniki na pravdnem oddelku Okrožnega sodišča v Mariboru osebno poznajo toženca, saj so bili sočasno sodniški pripravniki, razen ene sodnice, ki pa je toženčeva osebna prijateljica.

Predlog ni utemeljen.

Po določilu 68. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP, Ur.l. SFRJ, št. 4/77 do 27/90 in RS, št. 55/92) v zvezi s 6. točko 106. člena Zakona o sodiščih (ZS, Ur.l. RS št. 19/94 in 45/95) Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije lahko na predlog stranke ali pristojnega sodišča določi, naj postopa v posamezni zadevi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, če je očitno, da se bo tako lažje opravil postopek, ali če so za to drugi tehtni razlogi. Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije je prepričano, da zadržki, ki so navedeni v predlogu, ne predstavljajo tehtnega razloga za določitev drugega stvarno pristojnega sodišča. Sodniki morajo biti sposobni objektivno odločati o vseh sporih, zlasti še o premoženjskopravnih, čeprav pozanjo eno ali drugo pravdno stranko. Poleg tega se navedeni zadržki nanašajo samo na sodnike, ki odločajo v pravdnih sporih, čeprav opravlja sodniško funkcijo na mariborskem sodišču še več drugih sodnikov, zlasi tistih, ki sodijo v gospodarskih sporih.