Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
ATAS/1144/2007 • CJ GE ATAS/1144/2007 Généré par l'IA

Claimant v. Agency Regarding Benefit Eligibility and Timely Filing

Numéro de cause ATAS/1144/2007
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 case concerns an individual's challenge to a determination that they were ineligible for certain benefits due to failure to meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, specifically related to the timely filing of necessary documentation or proof of status. The court reasoned that the evidence presented did not conclusively demonstrate that the decision-maker abused their discretion or failed to apply the proper legal standards in assessing the claimant's application, affirming the initial determination because the claimant bore the burden of proving eligibility and timely compliance, which they failed to satisfy according to the established administrative record.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF; Claimant v. Agency Regarding Benefit Eligibility and Timely Filing: The court reasoned that the evidence presented did not conclusively demonstrate that the decision-maker abused their discretion or failed to apply the proper legal standards in assessing the claimant's application, affirming the initial determination because the claimant bore the burden of proving eligibility and timely compliance, which they failed to satisfy according to the established administrative record.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
recours contre des décisions administratives fardeau de la preuve prestation statutaire production de créance droit à l'indemnité de chômage droit aux prestations d'assurance

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 provision governs the allocation of costs in the final order.

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(##  11# # 0 *+2# *--, 0 0   11   3  #  # # 04   04#0  5! 6  0&7

1 0(##! 8#&# 4904&0#18# 04 :+:' 7

8&(1 *;2# *--, 34 #0 0(## 31#%<1! 07

(1 0(1= 01#>1! ?1 &9*--,7

40#0&1 #10&0 #0* 9*--, 0@1 # 0((A

B  1   0 &@ 0 #9:  !  0&   1 ## @" #  # &1(& # 0C#  D  88 (:    1 (@  C@"0(# 0(3  1 &  #90 0(##0" # 01#0"#  #0 #& #( ## @ 0  @ #>&   &    0 0 0(# 0 : "#  # 0C 1  0" 1   " 1# &1E 50#1 # 0 " #C# (0 0#F0#>(&90"D 0 C#    #8 F 88 #  6     9 ##@ 0 ( 51( 0 8  0(%  A &# 0&#  9<#& 1(0#1# #    #  #G6H

40# C 1 #32 7

0(#8#F(3! 1 & #07

  # 0 I 9 *--, 0  !  1 @  1  04  0(## 1# 0104#  #07

4#C# 04 (# 001(0@#& 8## #<:



)*+*,)*--,  ./)/.  

  0 1 +  *+ **+  *  +

! 2//.   3

4/.5.,, 6 27 89 : + ;

':    3  !  0 4 # 0  0(##  11# # 0 *+2# *--, 0 0   11   3  #  # # 04   04#0  5! 6    0& :

*: # 0   0  0 3 10 4#  # 0   0  @# 1(>0:

/: 4E0&  @09#:

?: # @1(0 < # :

I: 8&  1 # 0  @4 1C  8&     1(  D  0  0(# 0 /- 2 0>   #8# # 1> 0 #9 8(0( 5!%J#K%8@#;;--?  61C#0& #>00#  19#8&(&  F  : L*  0  # 8(0(   #9 8(0( 0 ',2#*--I5 $67&(&#00# #0#@#& #8  &E01C 1 #< 0 0&0 #7#0#  D  0(  #9 8(0( 1 C# 1   1 C# ( #@ F 0# # 0 " : ?*  $:  1(  D     1#>  1# 0  #C@(&&&E01C0#C D 2# 3"C#:    <88#>A (#0 A       $! M N 9!



1#8&01( D   #8#(F1 ###@43488#8(0( 0 (19#@1<88



)*+*,)*--,