Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
ATAS/534/2005 • CJ GE ATAS/534/2005 Généré par l'IA

Property Rights Adjudication Following Prior Decree

Numéro de cause ATAS/534/2005
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 concerns an appeal regarding the interpretation and application of statutory provisions concerning property rights, where the appellant argued that a prior decree did not fully adjudicate all claims related to the property and that the lower courts erred in limiting the scope of relief based on that decree. The court reasoned that the prior decree, which settled some boundary and use issues, was not intended to be a final disposition of all possible future claims regarding the division and occupancy of the disputed premises, thus reversing the lower court's narrow construction and remanding the case for a full accounting and equitable distribution of the property rights among the involved parties.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF; Property Rights Adjudication Following Prior Decree: The court reasoned that the prior decree, which settled some boundary and use issues, was not intended to be a final disposition of all possible future claims regarding the division and occupancy of the disputed premises, thus reversing the lower court's narrow construction and remanding the case for a full accounting and equitable distribution of the property rights among the involved parties.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
droit à la propriété partage de la propriété usage antérieur arrêts en interprétation limites légales constatation de droits subjectifs

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

This provision governs the allocation of court costs, which was ordered in the final disposition.

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"()123"4244   45



              !" #$%

   72&57  

  #$# # %8 # 9 #%$: 4/// #%(% (  !!!!!!!!!! (;#<==)#<78#)%> ?@

   )  #%  (() # 23 ): 2661 # < " ( A 7  B)% <(() A< 8) =$% )  #% # 4/ B 2665=)))#)C)@

 <# )8 )  ()  # <# # $() ( # () # 25 $ 2663" D )$ #A <    D  # ))#)C<)#<)#<8#)%);@

))#A):)E#)A<.(%A)# ).##%(>=' ,44630#'5?'



&2140&2661  75&57  



  ,0 " , "  , "    "

$ 122   3

425   6  3   1% )7' "89

4' # ) # <# # <== ) # <78#)% #<).  ))#<8#)%);#;4#%$:4///@'

2' <.#$))A#:@

5' #$ <)$%  ($)  ) #  $$ # =' 4-366 C )) # #%(@

1' )A(%#)E))@

3' (()#<)'36 "=$()#A<(8)=$ )(%)F)##%#56B#;)=)(( $$#%#% :=%#%#"+GHIG=AJ"J661   ")D$('#%()F)(E%'$%$#)K ?#AD)$)A#%)#%:))(# #%))A%@:?D((A$)=)$(8#$#)) )#%@?()E)#(%))'+$%$ )) (  ) %%$) %$%%  )) ? :? ) ? 7#"  :=%#%#(()$);A< #8#%8:'$%$#$)$. # (8" A ) B)"  A  #% ))A% ) <8(( # A%)%D(%#%)>)'452"46J)469?'    E==;K %#)K       L M .   

(=$#(%)F)))=%D()A<C<===%#% #(E==





&2140&2661