Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
11 06 79 • KG LU 11 06 79 Generato dall'IA

Urgent Order Revocation Appealability and Precautionary Measures Binding Nature

Numero d'incarto 11 06 79
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Canton Lucerna (CH-LU)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Archivio Entscheidsuche Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The court ruled that no appeal lies against the revocation of an urgent order and that a prior decision on precautionary measures issued in summary proceedings is binding on a subsequent judge with limited cognisance, addressing a dispute where claimants sought to use property for material extraction despite a prior eviction order. For granting precautionary measures, the court held that claimants must credibly demonstrate the merit of the main claim and a threatened, not easily remedied detriment, concluding that an exclusively financial loss generally does not constitute such a detriment unless the obligor cannot cover it or the damage is incalculable, which the claimants failed to establish.

Regesto Legislator

Ufficiale

§§ 227 und 231 ZPO. Gegen die Aufhebung einer dringlichen Anordnung ist kein Rechtsmittel gegeben. Der im Summarverfahren ergangene Entscheid über vorsorgliche Massnahmen ist bindend für den Richter, der später ebenfalls mit beschränkter Kognition entscheidet. Für den Erlass vorsorglicher Massnahmen muss die Begründetheit des Hauptbegehrens und ein drohender, nicht leicht wieder gutzumachender Nachteil glaubhaft gemacht werden. Ein ausschliesslich finanzieller Schaden stellt in der Regel keinen solchen Nachteil dar. | Zivilprozessrecht

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
forza di cosa giudicata ordine di sfratto revoca della decisione amministrativa procedimento pregiudiziale d'urgenza sequestro di beni misure cautelari

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art. 810 Abs. 2 ZGB
§ 231 Abs. 2 ZPO
Applied to declare that no appeal is available against the decision to lift the urgent order.
§ 227 Abs. 1 ZPO
Cited as the general requirement for ordering precautionary measures (showing a detriment that is not easily remedied).
§ 100 Abs. 2 ZPO
Applied to deem the claims inadmissible because they contradicted a prior, formally final decision (res judicata).
§ 226 ZPO
Mentioned as the procedure under which the prior decision to order eviction was made (Befehlsverfahren), which has formal but not material finality.
§ 238 lit. b ZPO
Cited regarding the formal, non-material finality of the prior eviction decision.
§ 225 ff. ZPO
Cited in relation to the binding nature of the prior summary decision on subsequent limited cognition proceedings.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
5P.333/2006
Easement Scope and Eviction Proceedings in Gravel Extraction Dispute
Generato dall'IA
OG 1993 49
Appealability of Threatened Seizure Orders
11 03 179
Tenant's Property Alteration Prohibition: Command vs. Provisional Measure Procedure Appeal
22 01 15
Appeal Against Dismissal of Urgent Provisional Measures in Custody Dispute
1C 12 15
Appellate Court Overturns Order for Security Based on Commercial Law Provision

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 231 Abs. 2 ZPO

Applied to declare that no appeal is available against the decision to lift the urgent order.

§ 227 Abs. 1 ZPO

Cited as the general requirement for ordering precautionary measures (showing a detriment that is not easily remedied).

§ 100 Abs. 2 ZPO

Applied to deem the claims inadmissible because they contradicted a prior, formally final decision (res judicata).

§ 226 ZPO

Mentioned as the procedure under which the prior decision to order eviction was made (Befehlsverfahren), which has formal but not material finality.

§ 238 lit. b ZPO

Cited regarding the formal, non-material finality of the prior eviction decision.

§ 225 ff. ZPO

Cited in relation to the binding nature of the prior summary decision on subsequent limited cognition proceedings.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Rechtsprechung Luzern

Instanz: · Obergericht

Abteilung: · I. Kammer

Rechtsgebiet: · Zivilprozessrecht

Entscheiddatum: · 17.07.2006

Fallnummer: · 11 06 79

LGVE: · 2006 I Nr. 38

Leitsatz: · §§ 227 und 231 ZPO. Gegen die Aufhebung einer dringlichen Anordnung ist kein Rechtsmittel gegeben. Der im Summarverfahren ergangene Entscheid über vorsorgliche Massnahmen ist bindend für den Richter, der später ebenfalls mit beschränkter Kognition entscheidet. Für den Erlass vorsorglicher Massnahmen muss die Begründetheit des Hauptbegehrens und ein drohender, nicht leicht wieder gutzumachender Nachteil glaubhaft gemacht werden. Ein ausschliesslich finanzieller Schaden stellt in der Regel keinen solchen Nachteil dar.

Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.