Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
ATA/725/2005 • CJ GE ATA/725/2005 Généré par l'IA

Challenge to Benefit Ineligibility Based on Statutory Presumption

Numéro de cause ATA/725/2005
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Genève (CH-GE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The petitioner challenged a finding of ineligibility for certain benefits based on a statutory presumption related to the timing of the relevant circumstances, arguing that the finding was factually unsupported and legally erroneous because the statutory presumption did not apply to the specific facts of their case; the court affirmed the ruling, reasoning that the relevant facts, as found by the lower tribunal, triggered the statutory presumption, and that the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption as required by law.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF; Challenge to Benefit Ineligibility Based on Statutory Presumption: The petitioner challenged a finding of ineligibility for certain benefits based on a statutory presumption related to the timing of the relevant circumstances, arguing that the finding was factually unsupported and legally erroneous because the statutory presumption did not apply to the specific facts of their case; the court affirmed the ruling, reasoning that the relevant facts, as found by the lower tribunal, triggered the statutory presumption, and that the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption as required by law.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
prestation statutaire présomption arrêts en appréciation de validité droit à l'indemnité de chômage droit aux prestations d'assurance nouveau moyen de droit

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Généré par l'IA

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

The court ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the federal proceedings.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

         

        

  



             

 !"#

$"%#$"#$&"'($())##$ 





 !""# $%&# 

# 

.  /.0.        



     '()*'

 #" / 01# #2(--3!4555555# ""#  &"  # 6&    #&4   "# "4 " 7"'89 :  ;  ,  42 (--3 <   #"&  &4   &  # 80 42(--3% 4# "<=#& 4" #> (--." "4 "#8$4 ?

 &  #"# 2 "   #"   # %   @   "  "#6<< "<?

#" 9

 =#6 ",,"4"#"#4""  "& 0(  420A+37 ' 30-;%#<< "<@4#"=6 #" ="" ""# =6" ##6B "###2  #?

 = # 6" (   4C4 "#" "#%  "2 4""  "<    "  6<<  "< @  4    " #   " C  #  $&4  4 #=6" C 2"# 6D##?

 =6@ 6 "(0"4" %6 #"  6#<<"#=C  ##4#&""#B"$ 2#"E ?

 =4# ##" 6"6$" 6 #" #$"# 6/"" "#4""  "&7 F(0F( ;?

 =   "#" "#   "    " $   #"   # 4""  "&%#G" %#@6 2"4 <" ?

 ==C & C / %"6D" 4"68"2  "  4 #&""#    '@   ="   " @ 6 2"4 <" ?

 =  #  4  "   "2 4""  "< 6## @ 6" "4# "@"&"&"#"4 "?

 =6  =C  6  # #2/  6# #"  6<<  "<% 4" &"  @ ="/"" "#""6##4#&""#  @# " :  @$" @D%G %  "#""?

 =   4  &""    4" "  6    <"  # @  &$6" C #4#4"%" > #" " "4 #&2"" 6   4"# ?

 =6" 8##G"2/"7 H0(**A#"F*F .0? H00A3-*#"F( *F3-3'3-,?##FF H (+/"0AA3

)(*+,)(--. '*)*'

F?""#FF "24""  "<%#"  F(/" 0AAA?!F1 4"0AAA? F((#E 0AA1?F(1#&420AA, F(+/"0AA3;?

 => #=%  4  4 #&""#   #   / F

+"#$% (1$          

/ 44#&""#?

&# <" /=>@#" /$<#?

#44"=    ""#%  #"% @ ! "" # $% &#    #  ""=6&" #6& #&4 "#"4 "F

  "  "24""  "<9     HFDG8 

#"#<#4 ""# #44"=B "F

 8&%  $<<"89         

)(*+,)(--.