Applicant's Appeal Against Legal Aid Refusal Deemed Inadmissible Due to Lack of Motivation and Merit
Schweiz · Bundesgericht (BGer / BGE) (CH)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe case involves an individual, referred to as X.________, who sought legal aid to pursue a damages lawsuit against a lawyer from Geneva. The initial request for judicial assistance was denied by the Vice-President of the civil court and, upon appeal, was also rejected by the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of Geneva, citing the lawsuit's lack of success prospects. X.________ then appealed this decision to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, but the appeal was deemed inadmissible due to insufficient reasoning. X.________ also requested judicial assistance for this federal procedure, which was likewise rejected because the case was considered to have no chance of success. Consequently, X.________ was ordered to pay a court fee.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiertArt. 108 al. 1 let. b LTF, Art. 64 al. 3 LTF, Art. 68 al. 1 LTF; Applicant's Appeal Against Legal Aid Refusal Deemed Inadmissible Due to Lack of Motivation and Merit: The initial request for judicial assistance was denied by the Vice-President of the civil court and, upon appeal, was also rejected by the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of Geneva, citing the lawsuit's lack of success prospects. X.________ then appealed this decision to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, but the appeal was deemed inadmissible due to insufficient reasoning. X.________ also requested judicial assistance for this federal procedure, which was likewise rejected because the case was considered to have no chance of success. Consequently, X.________ was ordered to pay a court fee.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertZitierte Rechtsprechung
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertCited in the operative part to declare the appeal inadmissible due to lack of proper substantiation.
Cited in the operative part to reject the request for legal aid before the Federal Tribunal.
Implicitly applied via the explicit mention of the judicial fee in order 3, although Art. 68 is the general cost provision, the decision cites Art. 64 al. 3 LTF and Art. 108 al. 1 let. b LTF as reasons for the decision, and Art. 66 al. 1 LTF for costs. Since the question is about citing explicitly, and only Art. 64 al. 3 LTF and Art. 108 al. 1 let. b LTF are mentioned in the *reasons* for the dispositive, the explicit citation for costs is Art. 66 al. 1 LTF which is the rule regarding costs. However, the reasoning section cites Art. 64 al. 3 LTF and Art. 108 al. 1 let. b LTF as the basis for the *entire* decision, which includes rejecting legal aid (Art. 64 al. 3 LTF) and declaring inadmissibility (Art. 108 al. 1 let. b LTF). Order 3 explicitly imposes a fee of 200 francs. The general basis for the decision mentions Art. 64 al. 3 LTF and Art. 108 al. 1 let. b LTF. In the dispositive, order 3 imposes the fee. The provision explicitly cited in the *reasons for the judgment* that covers costs/fees is Art. 64 al. 3 LTF regarding the rejection of legal aid, and the general court fee rule is usually Art. 66 LTF. Since the explicit citation for costs (Art. 66 LTF) is missing from the 'vu les articles', I will only include the ones explicitly named in the 'vu les articles' section that relate to the orders: Art. 108 al. 1 let. b LTF (inadmissibility) and Art. 64 al. 3 LTF (legal aid). Order 3 imposes a fee, the cost provision should be Art. 66 al. 1 LTF following standard practice, but it is not listed there. I will only list what is explicitly cited in the 'vu les art.' section supporting the orders.
Spätere Entscheide, die dieses Urteil zitieren (1)
Volltext
Bundesgericht
Tribunal fédéral
Tribunale federale
Tribunal federal
4A_558/2019
Arrêt du 3 décembre 2019
Ire Cour de droit civil
Composition
Mme la juge Kiss, Présidente de la Cour.
Greffier : M. Thélin.
Participants à la procédure
X.________,
recourant,
contre
Cour de justice du canton de Genève,
intimée.
Objet
procédure civile; assistance judiciaire
recours contre la décision du Vice-Président de la Cour de justice du canton de Genève du 11 septembre 2019 (AC/1638/2019, DAAJ/117/2019).
Considérant :
Que X.________ a présenté une requête d'assistance judiciaire en vue d'ouvrir une action en dommages-intérêts contre Me Z.________, avocat à Genève, devant les tribunaux du canton de Genève;
Que cette requête a été rejetée le 12 juin 2019 par le Vice-Président du Tribunal civil, puis, sur recours, le 11 septembre 2019, par le Vice-Président de la Cour de justice;
Que selon ces autorités, l'action est dépourvue de chances de succès;
Que X.________ attaque l'arrêt de la Cour de justice devant le Tribunal fédéral;
Que son recours est irrecevable faute de motivation topique;
Que le Tribunal fédéral peut se référer à ses arrêts 4A_75/2019 du 20 février 2019, 4A_145/2019 du 9 avril 2019, 4A_252 du 17 juin 2019 et 4A_308/2019 du 25 juin 2019, concernant tous des recours pareillement défectueux, précédemment introduits par X.________ à l'encontre de décisions de refus de l'assistance judiciaire;
Que X.________ sollicite l'assistance judiciaire devant le Tribunal fédéral;
Que la procédure nouvellement entreprise devant ce tribunal n'offrait manifestement, elle non plus, aucune chance de succès;
Que la demande d'assistance judiciaire sera en conséquence rejetée;
Que X.________ doit acquitter l'émolument à percevoir par le Tribunal fédéral.
Par ces motifs, vu les art. 64 al. 3 et 108 al. 1 let. b LTF, le Tribunal fédéral prononce :
1. La demande d'assistance judiciaire est rejetée.
2. Le recours est irrecevable.
3. Le recourant acquittera un émolument judiciaire de 200 francs.
4. Le présent arrêt est communiqué au recourant et à la Cour de justice du canton de Genève.
Lausanne, le 3 décembre 2019
Au nom de la Ire Cour de droit civil
du Tribunal fédéral suisse
La présidente : Kiss
Le greffier : Thélin