Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
ATAS/437/2005 • CJ GE ATAS/437/2005 Généré par l'IA

Procedural Rule Interpretation: Timely Service vs. Filing Notation

Numéro de cause ATAS/437/2005
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Genève (CH-GE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Partiellement admis (Partially Allowed)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The case involves a dispute over the interpretation of procedural rules regarding the timing of filing certain documents, specifically concerning whether a filing date satisfied a statutory requirement contingent on timely service, and whether an erroneous notation on a document affected its validity. The court reasoned that the procedural rule required actual service within a specific timeframe, and that merely noting an earlier date on the document, even if intended to reflect service, did not cure the failure to effectuate service within the mandated period, thereby upholding the lower court's finding that the filing was untimely due to the lack of timely service.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 108 al. 1 let. a LTF, Art. 66 al. 1 LTF; Procedural Rule Interpretation: Timely Service vs. Filing Notation: The court reasoned that the procedural rule required actual service within a specific timeframe, and that merely noting an earlier date on the document, even if intended to reflect service, did not cure the failure to effectuate service within the mandated period, thereby upholding the lower court's finding that the filing was untimely due to the lack of timely service.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
dépôt tardif règles procédurales validité de la notification arrêts en interprétation condition légale procédure préjudicielle d'urgence

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Généré par l'IA

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 108 al. 1 let. a LTF

Used to declare the appeal inadmissible based on simplified procedure.

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

The appellant is ordered to pay the court costs because their appeal was unsuccessful.

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   +  12 3333333333 ! #   "#$$#%""& $ ' (   !# 



# 

00  +  +1*4 +  $ " "% )#*+,-!



             !"

   '0.1'  

  #$ ##   5  6 &    78  9999999999 , 7   # "%"":

7$"$#% "#$%$ "$14%0442 :

$ ; # $   $" "    #! ; #   88" 8  ""  # < ./+0=.41  "#  "  $ >;7,  $""# $8"" "!$ :

$ ;  "  #    $ $7#$     " $#    $ $0>"0442 )  $?$7 @/2  :

"#   % $ $!  5 :

#"$&  (   $/4%"0443#""  " $#7 @+*  "#,#!:

7"  > "8" $7"; 7 @ /2   ,   #! "# >;7, $#"  #$#$"#  % $ $!  5 @

*   0 + * + +  *  +

! 1--5   6

7-525   8  655 5  1" /9$ +:;

 

$#"$7"  "#$" "#$7 @+* @

-6 

/@ 6$ " "#$7 @/2 >;7,$#" >A$ "#  ./+0=.0441@

0@ !" $#$@

1@ 8#%   " $  ;7 !  8#% # #     B  $  $" $ /4 ># $-  # "8" "#  " #%%$ $  "? 8$ $  6CD"EC#8;" F F442     #" G%"@  $"    B  ##A@  %%#" $#" H I "$"; G % ;$""## $"#? "" $$""#

 ./0123.0444  '1.1'    ;: ?I G# # ; %# "8 "  "% #!#" $%$     $""#: I #   "A  #  $ #   @ 6"  %%#"  # "   #" %  % #   I ?I   I "'$  "? 8$ $   #     % "-   # ;7" $! $ "!?@  %%#" $ # % "# #  %#) $ !;"# >#" "";$""# ; 7!#$;  G$"# J @/10/4F /4=I@     A88"H  "$ H   "" ??#"                





#"#8#%$ B  # "8"G """;7,788"8$ $#"A88

 ./0123.0444