Appeal Withdrawal in Accident Insurance Case

The procedural ground for striking the case from the roll following withdrawal of the appeal is implied by the decision to strike the case from the roll (Art. 32 cpv. 2 LTF refers to the procedure set out in Art. 71 LTF, which in turn refers to Art. 73 PC, but the primary procedural consequence for withdrawal, especially in simplified proceedings, is often linked to specific LTF articles or derived from the general rules applied for simple administrative matters; however, since the explicit articles cited in the reasoning for striking the case are Art. 32 cpv. 2 and 71 LTF in relation to Art. 73 PC, and the dispositive only orders the striking, the most accurate inclusions are those explicitly mentioned prior to the orders, or the cost/legal aid articles. Based strictly on the dispositive orders (1. and 2.), we should only look there. Order 1 simply states the action. Order 2 addresses costs. In many cases dealing with withdrawal, Art. 108 LTF (simplified procedure) is implied or cited if the decision is delivered without exchange of pleadings, which is common for withdrawal. However, since the reasoning cites Art. 32 cpv. 2 LTF and Art. 71 LTF, which direct towards applying the procedural rules for withdrawal, and the decision is a decree, Art. 108 LTF is the standard procedural basis for such decrees, even if not explicitly in the dispositive except through cost articles. Given the strict instruction to only include provisions cited in the *dispositive*, we must re-evaluate. The dispositive only contains orders 1, 2, and 3. Order 1: Struck from the roll. Order 2: No judicial costs levied. Order 3: Communication. Neither order 1 nor order 3 cites any legal provision. Order 2 cites Art. 66 cpv. 1 LTF only via the reasoning preamble: 'si prescinde dalla riscossione di spese giudiziarie (art. 66 cpv. 1 seconda frase LTF)' and then Order 2 states: 'Non si prelevano spese giudiziarie.' Since the rule for inclusion states to include cost/legal aid provisions if cited in the dispositive, and the *reasoning* mentions Art. 66 cpv. 1 frase seconda LTF, but the *dispositive* (Order 2) does not explicitly cite any article, I must adhere strictly to the rule: **Include a provision only if it is explicitly cited in the dispositive (the numbered orders at the end of the decision).** Since no provision is cited in Orders 1, 2, or 3, the result should be empty, unless the omission of the citation in Order 2 is interpreted loosely. The reasoning states: 'si prescinde dalla riscossione di spese giudiziarie (art. 66 cpv. 1 seconda frase LTF)'. Order 2 simply states the decision: 'Non si prelevano spese giudiziarie.' Given the strict nature of the instructions, and the absence of explicit citation in the numbered dispositive parts, I must conclude that no provisions qualify under the defined rules for inclusion based *only* on the dispositive text.