Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
15.1995.87 • TRAC TI 15.1995.87 Généré par l'IA

Execution Delay Complaint Withdrawal Validity

Numéro de cause 15.1995.87
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton du Tessin (CH-TI)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige struck_off
Frais judiciaires sans frais
Ouvrir la source officielle Miroir Entscheidsuche Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

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office regarding unjustified delays in several enforcement proceedings, but subsequently requested the complaint be withdrawn, stating an intent to refile only if outstanding matters were not resolved shortly.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.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

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.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
plainte à l'autorité de surveillance droit de rétractation poursuite par voie de faillite retard injustifié réquisition de continuer la poursuite action en revendication dans la saisie Sentenza o decisione senza scheda

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
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).
Généré par l'IA
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

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
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).

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

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