Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
15.1995.87 • TRAC TI 15.1995.87 AI generated

Execution Delay Complaint Withdrawal Validity

Case Number 15.1995.87
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Switzerland · Canton of Ticino (CH-TI)
Decision Date
Outcome struck_off
Court Costs No costs imposed
Open official source Entscheidsuche mirror Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

A party filed a complaint against an execution and bankruptcy office regarding unjustified delays in several enforcement proceedings, but subsequently requested the complaint be withdrawn, stating an intent to refile only if outstanding matters were not resolved shortly. The supervisory court determined that the request constituted an unconditional withdrawal, as the party had merely reserved the right to appeal again, thus rendering the initial appeal moot and ordering it struck from the record without assessment of costs or indemnity.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 67 cpv. 2 OTLEF, Art. 68 cpv. 2 OTLEF; Execution Delay Complaint Withdrawal Validity: The supervisory court determined that the request constituted an unconditional withdrawal, as the party had merely reserved the right to appeal again, thus rendering the initial appeal moot and ordering it struck from the record without assessment of costs or indemnity.

Keywords

AI generated
supervisory complaint right of withdrawal bankruptcy enforcement proceedings unjustified procedural delay request to proceed with execution third-party claim in execution Sentenza o decisione senza scheda

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 67 cpv. 2 OTLEF
This provision is cited in the reasoning section immediately preceding the orders, suggesting its procedural relevance to the decision to strike the appeal from the roll due to withdrawal (order 1).
Art. 68 cpv. 2 OTLEF
This provision is cited in the reasoning section immediately preceding the orders, justifying the decision on costs/indemnities (order 2).
AI generated
15.1995.00113
Execution and Bankruptcy Appeal Withdrawal
15.1997.24
Appeal Regarding Execution Delay Dismissed as Moot Following Payment
15.1995.76
Complaint Against Enforcement Office Struck Due to Withdrawal
15.1995.14
Claimant Withdraws Appeal Against Execution Delay
15.1998.44
Appeal Struck Due to Settlement of Execution Debt

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 67 cpv. 2 OTLEF

This provision is cited in the reasoning section immediately preceding the orders, suggesting its procedural relevance to the decision to strike the appeal from the roll due to withdrawal (order 1).

Art. 68 cpv. 2 OTLEF

This provision is cited in the reasoning section immediately preceding the orders, justifying the decision on costs/indemnities (order 2).

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Incarto n. 15.95.00087 · Lugano 10 gennaio 1996/B/fc/fb · In nome della Repubblica e Cantone del Ticino La Camera di esecuzione e fallimenti del Tribunale d'appello quale autorità di vigilanza

composta dei giudici: · Cometta, presidente Pellegrini e Zali

segretario: · Baur Martinelli, vicecancelliera

statuendo sul reclamo 4 aprile 1995 della

__________ Contro

l’operato dell’Ufficio esecuzione e fallimenti di Leventina, per ritardata giustizia in diverse procedure esecutive;

preso atto che con scritto 2 novembre 1995 la __________ ha chiesto di “voler annullare il reclamo summenzionato, riservandoci di ritornare sulla questione qualora entro breve anche le ultime questioni ancora in sospeso non verranno liquidate”;

ritenuto che contrariamente a quanto rilevato con scritto 22 dicembre 1995 dall’UEF di Leventina, non si tratta non di ritiro condizionato, la reclamante non avendo posto condizione alcuna, bensì avendo unicamente ribadito la sua facoltà, peraltro ovvia, di presentare un nuovo reclamo qualora lo ritenesse necessario;

considerato come il reclamo sia così divenuto privo d’oggetto;

richiamati gli art. 67 cpv. 2 e 68 cpv. 2 OTLEF

pronuncia

1. Il reclamo 4 aprile 1995 della __________, è stralciato dai ruoli per intervenuto ritiro.

2. Non si prelevano spese e non si assegnano indennità.

3. Intimazione a: - __________

Per la Camera di esecuzione e fallimenti del Tribunale d’appello

quale autorità di vigilanza

Il presidente La segretaria