Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
Sklep I R 78/2004 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2004:I.R.78.2004 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court transfers case to another court because plaintiff employed at same court raises impartiality doubts.

Numero d'incarto Sklep I R 78/2004
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Slovenia (SI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Parzialmente accolto (Partially Allowed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Court of Slovenia transferred jurisdiction of a property dispute to a different competent court upon the plaintiff's request. The plaintiff, who filed the lawsuit in 2003, was subsequently employed as a technical assistant at the original court by October 2003. The court ruled that this employment created a significant reason under Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act to ensure impartiality, thereby validating the transfer.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act; The Supreme Court may transfer a case to another competent court if there are significant reasons for doing so, such as when a party's employment at the original court creates a reasonable doubt about judicial impartiality.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
Civil Procedure Act Judicial Impartiality Jurisdiction Transfer Conflict of Interest Technical Assistant Property Dispute Supreme Court collocamento in posizione provvisoria

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act
Generato dall'IA
Sklep I R 142/2007
Supreme Court transfers jurisdiction due to conflict of interest involving the court's own building.
VSRS Sodba II Ips 270/2015
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; ownership registration invalid due to lack of co-ownership basis in underlying contract.
Sodba II Ips 556/2005
Plaintiff's claim for land registry document against third-party owners dismissed due to lack of contractual privity.
VSC sodba Cp 660/2009
Appeal dismissed: Good faith construction on communal land does not grant ownership without 10-year possession.
VSL sodba I Cpg 209/04
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff failed to prove ownership title beyond mere cooperative exit registration.

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

Za odločanje v tej zadevi se določi Okrožno sodišče v Murski Soboti.

[JEDRO]

Ker se je tožnik med postopkom zaposlil pri istem sodiščem kot strokovni sodelavec, gre za drug tehten razlog po 67. členu ZPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožnik je 24.2.2003 pri Okrožnem sodišču v ... vložil tožbo, s katero zahteva, da sodišče razsodi, da je on lastnik oziroma solastnik določenih parcel, kar so mu toženci dolžni priznati in izstaviti za zemljiškoknjižni prenos lastninske pravice sposobno listino. Sodišče je z vlogo z dne 16.8.2004 vrhovnemu sodišču predlagalo, da za odločanje v tej zadevi določi drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, ker je tožnik od oktobra 2003 zaposlen pri njih kot strokovni sodelavec, to pa je okoliščina, ki pri strankah lahko povzroči dvom v nepristranost sojenja.

Predlog je utemeljen.

Vrhovno sodišče lahko na podlagi 67. člena ZPP na predlog stranke ali sodišča določi, da v zadevi postopa drugo stvarno pristojno sodišče, če je očitno, da se bo tako laže opravil postopek, ali če so za to drugi tehtni razlogi. V tej zadevi vrhovno sodišče ocenjuje, da gre za drug tehten razlog v smislu navedene zakonske določbe, saj lahko dejstvo, da se je tožnik med postopkom zaposlil kot strokovni sodelavec pri istem sodišču, moteče vpliva na potek postopka. Zato je predlogu sodišča ugodilo in za odločanje določilo sodišče po prebivališču tožencev.