Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
BS-8419/2018-OLR ECLI:DK:OLR:2022:BS0000002324 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because no permission from the Procedure Permission Board exists for the lower court's ruling.

Case Number BS-8419/2018-OLR
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Denmark (DK)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellant challenged a lower court order compelling them to testify, which the High Court dismissed immediately. The lower court had determined the appellant had a duty to explain under the Code of Civil Procedure, but the appeal lacked the specific permission required by the Procedure Permission Board. The court ruled that without this mandatory authorization, the appeal against the lower court's procedural decision is legally inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Retsplejelovens § 389 a, stk. 1; jf. stk. 2: An appeal against a court decision made during or before a main hearing is inadmissible unless a permit from the Procedure Permission Board exists.

Keywords

AI generated
procedure permission board testimony compulsion lower court appeal admissibility requirement civil procedure law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Retsplejelovens § 389 a, stk. 1, jf. stk. 2
retsplejelovens § 389 a, stk. 1, jf. stk. 2.
AI generated
BS-50950/2020-OLR
Appeal against lower court's refusal to summon witness dismissed due to lack of procedural permission.
BS-39602/2020-LYN
Court dismisses witness request because the individual is deemed a party representative without significant evidentiary value.
BS-2394/2007-OLR
Court rules that the party who originally requested witness testimony retains the right to call them in appeal.
SS-3837/2010-OLR
Court upholds witness summons against psychologist despite statutory silence duty in serious military investigation.
BS-7042/2024-VLR
Appeal dismissed because leave from the Procedure Permission Board was required under the Rules of Civil Procedure but not obtained.

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

Kære af kendelse om vidnepligt afvist, da der ikke foreligger tilladelse fra Procesbevillingsnævnet

[DOKUMENT] Retsbog med kendelse (3 sider) ØSTRE LANDSRET RETSBOG

Den 22. marts 2018 holdt Østre Landsret møde i retsbygningen i København.

Landsdommerne Dorthe Wiisbye, Katja Høegh og Helga Lund Laursen (kst.) behandlede sagen.

Sag BS-8419/2018-OLR (16. afdeling)

Kærende, tidligere Person 3 påkærer kendelse i byretssagen:

Mor (advokat Kim Rosenthal Hansen) mod 1) Mulig far 1 (advokat Christina Neugebauer) 2) Mulig far 2 (advokat Steen Henriksson)

Ved kendelse af 8. marts 2018 (sag BS-5/2012-GLO, BS 90B- 3977/2012) bestemte Retten i Glostrup i medfør af retsplejelovens § 171, stk. 3, at Kærende, tidligere Person 3 havde pligt til at afgive forklaring i retten.

Kærende, tidligere Person 3 kærede denne afgørelse til retsbogen den 8. marts 2018.

Der er ikke for landsretten fremsat bemærkninger fra parterne vedrørende kæremålet.

Byretten har henholdt sig til afgørelsen.

Landsretten afsagde

KENDELSE

Kendelser og andre beslutninger, der afsiges af byretten under hovedforhand-lingen eller under dennes forberedelse, kan ikke kæres, medmindre der forelig-ger en tilladelse fra Procesbevillingsnævnet, jf. retsplejelovens § 389 a, stk. 1, jf. stk. 2. Da en sådan tilladelse ikke foreligger, afvises kæremålet.

Ingen af parterne skal betale kæremålsomkostninger til andre parter.

THI BESTEMMES:

Kæremålet afvises.

Ingen af parterne skal betale kæremålsomkostninger for landsretten til andre parter.

Sagen sluttet.