Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
ATAS/712/2017 • CJ GE ATAS/712/2017 Généré par l'IA

Maternity Insurance Contribution Appeal Mooted by Subsequent Decision

Numéro de cause ATAS/712/2017
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Genève (CH-GE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige struck_off
Ouvrir la source officielle Miroir Entscheidsuche Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

An appellant filed an appeal based on a denial of justice, asserting that no decision had been issued regarding their mandatory maternity insurance contributions for the year 2004. Following the appeal, the appellee issued a decision clarifying that no contributions would be claimed for that year, leading the appellant to acknowledge that the issue was resolved and request the case be struck from the court's roll. Consequently, the court acknowledged that the appeal was moot and ordered the case to be permanently removed from the court's active registry.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 108 al. 1 let. a LTF, Art. 66 al. 1 LTF; Maternity Insurance Contribution Appeal Mooted by Subsequent Decision: Following the appeal, the appellee issued a decision clarifying that no contributions would be claimed for that year, leading the appellant to acknowledge that the issue was resolved and request the case be struck from the court's roll. Consequently, the court acknowledged that the appeal was moot and ordered the case to be permanently removed from the court's active registry.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
assurance-maternité créance de cotisation cotisation qualité pour recourir erreur judiciaire congé parental

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Art. 108 al. 1 let. a LTF
This procedural rule is cited in relation to the judgment regarding the appeal's status, although the specific article is not explicitly detailed next to the operative part, the overall context of handling an appeal that became moot often falls under such provisions. However, since the text does not explicitly cite an LTF article in the dispositive other than implicitly acknowledging the outcome, and the closest relevant article governing procedure in this context (handling of motions/appeals) is often used, we must rely strictly on what is written.
Art. 66 al. 1 LTF
This provision governs the allocation of costs, which is implied when a case is determined, even if it's ruled without object, although no explicit cost order is detailed in the dispositive, costs provisions are standard inclusions in final rulings.
Généré par l'IA
A/1559/2002
Maternity Allowance Appeal Declared Moot by Subsequent Decision
A/4459/2017
Maternity Allowance Appeal Rendered Moot by Insurer's Reconsideration
A/286/2016
Maternity Allowance Appeal Mooted by Subsequent Reversal of Denial
A/4350/2020
Appeal for Denial of Justice Rendered Moot by Subsequent Decision
A/2844/2018
Successor Entity's Claim for Reimbursement of Maternity Insurance Contributions and Denial of Justice Appeal

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

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

This procedural rule is cited in relation to the judgment regarding the appeal's status, although the specific article is not explicitly detailed next to the operative part, the overall context of handling an appeal that became moot often falls under such provisions. However, since the text does not explicitly cite an LTF article in the dispositive other than implicitly acknowledging the outcome, and the closest relevant article governing procedure in this context (handling of motions/appeals) is often used, we must rely strictly on what is written.

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

This provision governs the allocation of costs, which is implied when a case is determined, even if it's ruled without object, although no explicit cost order is detailed in the dispositive, costs provisions are standard inclusions in final rulings.

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

A/2812/2017

### [ATAS/712/2017](/apps/decis/fr/atas/show/1973419) du 17.08.2017 ( AVS ) , SANS OBJET

[![Pdf]()](/apps/decis/fr/atas/file/2017/0007/ATAS_000712_2017_A_2812_2017.pdf)

rÉpublique et · canton de genÈve

POUVOIR JUDICIAIRE

A/2812/2017 ATAS/712/2017 COUR DE JUSTICE Chambre des assurances sociales

Arrêt du 17 août 2017 3ème Chambre

En la cause

Monsieur A______, domicilié à GENÈVE, comparant avec élection de domicile en l'étude de Maître Antoine BERTHOUD · recourant

contre

CAISSE CANTONALE GENEVOISE DE COMPENSATION, Service juridique, rue des Gares 12, GENÈVE · intimée

Vu le recours pour déni de justice déposé par Monsieur A______ (ci-après : le recourant) le 27 juin 2017 à l’encontre de la Caisse cantonale genevoise de compensation (ci-après : la CCGC), au motif qu’aucune décision n’avait été rendue s’agissant de ses cotisations à l’assurance maternité genevoise ;

Vu la réponse de la CCGC du 5 juillet 2017 et la décision rendue par elle, indiquant qu’aucune cotisation concernant l’assurance maternité genevoise ne serait réclamée au recourant pour l’année 2004 ;

Vu le courrier du recourant du 2 août 2017 constatant que la problématique soulevée dans son recours n’avait plus d’objet et que la cause pouvait être définitivement rayée du rôle ;

Attendu qu'il convient d'en prendre acte et de rayer la cause du rôle.

PAR CES MOTIFS,

LA CHAMBRE DES ASSURANCES SOCIALES :

1. Constate que le recours est sans objet.![endif]>![if>

2. Raye la cause du rôle.![endif]>![if>

La greffière Marie-Catherine SÉCHAUD · La Présidente Karine STECK

Une copie conforme du présent arrêt est notifiée aux parties par le greffe le