Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
2C_982/2020 KI-generiert

Appeal Withdrawal Due to Extrajudicial Settlement Regarding Lifting of Professional Secrecy

Geschäftsnummer 2C_982/2020
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Schweiz · Bundesgericht (BGer / BGE) (CH)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang struck_off
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

A legal case was brought before the Swiss Federal Tribunal by an individual challenging a decision regarding professional secrecy made on October 21, 2020, by the Administrative Court of the Canton of Ticino. The individual was initially seeking to overturn the ruling related to the release from professional secrecy, but later withdrew the appeal after reaching an out-of-court settlement with the opposing parties. As a result, the Federal Tribunal acknowledged the withdrawal of the case, and the appeal was removed from the docket, with associated court fees charged to the appellant. No compensation for legal costs was awarded.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Art. 32 cpv. 2 LTF, Art. 71 LTF, Art. 73 PC, Art. 5 cpv. 2 PC, Art. 66 cpv. 2 LTF, art. 66 cpv. 3 LTF; Appeal Withdrawal Due to Extrajudicial Settlement Regarding Lifting of Professional Secrecy: The individual was initially seeking to overturn the ruling related to the release from professional secrecy, but later withdrew the appeal after reaching an out-of-court settlement with the opposing parties. As a result, the Federal Tribunal acknowledged the withdrawal of the case, and the appeal was removed from the docket, with associated court fees charged to the appellant. No compensation for legal costs was awarded.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Abschiebung Rückzug nach Vergleich Verletzung des Berufsgeheimnisses Verfahrensabschreibung Notar Ausnahme von Recht

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Art. 32 cpv. 2 LTF
che il giudice dell'istruzione decide quale giudice unico lo stralcio dal ruolo delle cause ritirate ( art. 32 cpv. 2 LTF );
Art. 71 LTF
This article, in conjunction with Art. 73 PC, was applied to order the removal of the case from the rolls following the withdrawal of the appeal.
Art. 73 PC
71 LTF in relazione con l' art. 73 PC );
Art. 5 cpv. 2 PC
71 LTF in relazione con l' art. 5 cpv. 2 PC );
Art. 66 cpv. 2 LTF
This article was applied to allow for the reduction of the court costs.
art. 66 cpv. 3 LTF
This article was cited in connection with Art. 68 para. 4 LTF regarding the non-assignment of costs due to the agreement between the parties.
art. 66 cpv. 1 LTF
This article was cited in connection with Art. 71 LTF to impose the federal court costs on the appellant.
art. 68 cpv. 1 e 2 LTF
This article was applied as the basis for not awarding costs to C.________, as he was not represented.
KI-generiert
6B_1029/2017
Appeal Withdrawn in Professional Secrecy Case
1B_761/2012
Withdrawal of Appeal Before Federal Supreme Court Due to Settlement
6B_494/2013
Appeal Withdrawal Following Extrajudicial Settlement
4A_227/2018
Withdrawal of Appeal Due to Settlement
4A_532/2018
Appellant's Withdrawal of Appeal Following Settlement

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
art. 66 cpv. 2 LTF

This article was applied to allow for the reduction of the court costs.

art. 66 cpv. 3 LTF

This article was cited in connection with Art. 68 para. 4 LTF regarding the non-assignment of costs due to the agreement between the parties.

art. 66 cpv. 1 LTF

This article was cited in connection with Art. 71 LTF to impose the federal court costs on the appellant.

art. 68 cpv. 1 e 2 LTF

This article was applied as the basis for not awarding costs to C.________, as he was not represented.

art. 68 cpv. 4 LTF

This article was cited in connection with Art. 66 para. 3 LTF regarding the non-assignment of costs due to the agreement between the parties.

art. 71 LTF

This article, in conjunction with Art. 73 PC, was applied to order the removal of the case from the rolls following the withdrawal of the appeal.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

Bundesgericht

Tribunal fédéral

Tribunale federale

Tribunal federal

2C_982/2020

Decreto del 21 maggio 2021

II Corte di diritto pubblico

Composizione

Giudice federale Aubry Girardin,

in qualità di giudice unica,

Cancelliere Ermotti.

Partecipanti al procedimento

A.________,

patrocinata dall'avv. Luca Taddei,

ricorrente,

contro

Commissione per il notariato del Cantone Ticino,

palazzo di Giustizia, via Pretorio 16, 6901 Lugano,

B.________,

patrocinato dall'avv. dott. Carlo Postizzi,

C.________.

Oggetto

Svincolo dal segreto professionale,

ricorso contro la sentenza emanata il 21 ottobre 2020

dal Tribunale amministrativo del Cantone Ticino (52.2020.133).

Visto:

il ricorso presentato il 24 novembre 2020 da A.________ presso il Tribunale federale contro la sentenza del Tribunale amministrativo del Cantone Ticino del 21 ottobre 2020 in materia di segreto professionale;

la lettera del 5 maggio 2021 con cui la ricorrente ha dichiarato in sostanza di ritirare il ricorso poiché le parti "hanno trovato un accordo extragiudiziario che risolve oltre a tutte le pratiche relative al loro contenzioso anche la pratica di cui a margine che diviene quindi priva d'oggetto";

considerando:

che il giudice dell'istruzione decide quale giudice unico lo stralcio dal ruolo delle cause ritirate ( art. 32 cpv. 2 LTF );

che nella fattispecie, dato il ritiro del ricorso annunciato nella lettera del 5 maggio 2021, la giudice dell'istruzione non può far altro che prendere atto di tale ritiro e disporre lo stralcio della causa dai ruoli ( art. 71 LTF in relazione con l' art. 73 PC );

che, come del resto richiesto dalla ricorrente nella lettera del 5 maggio 2021, le spese giudiziarie della sede federale vanno poste a carico di quest'ultima (cfr. 66 cpv. 1 LTF; art. 71 LTF in relazione con l' art. 5 cpv. 2 PC );

che tali spese possono tuttavia essere ridotte in applicazione dell' art. 66 cpv. 2 LTF ;

che, come illustrato dalla ricorrente, le parti sono d'accordo di compensare le ripetibili, di modo che non si giustifica di assegnarne ad B.________ in questa sede sulla base dei combinati art. 66 cpv. 3 e 68 cpv. 4 LTF;

che non si giustifica nemmeno assegnare ripetibili a C.________, il quale non si è fatto rappresentare ( art. 68 cpv. 1 e 2 LTF );

per questi motivi, la Giudice unica decreta:

1. È preso atto del ritiro del ricorso e la causa 2C_982/2020 è stralciata dai ruoli.

2. Le spese giudiziarie di fr. 1'000.-- sono poste a carico della ricorrente.

3. Non vengono assegnate ripetibili.

4. Comunicazione al patrocinatore della ricorrente, alla Commissione per il notariato del Cantone Ticino, al patrocinatore di B.________, a C.________ e al Tribunale amministrativo del Cantone Ticino.

Losanna, 21 maggio 2021

In nome della II Corte di diritto pubblico

del Tribunale federale svizzero

La Giudice unica: Il Cancelliere:

Aubry Girardin Ermotti