173.000 GOGLOG

CH-GR

Art. 38 Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz (GOG) - Besetzung

Gerichtsbehörden - Obergericht - Allgemeine Organisation

Originalquelle öffnen Gesamter Erlass (122 Artikel) Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Art. 38 GOG · Besetzung

1. Das Obergericht entscheidet in der Regel in der Besetzung mit drei Richterinnen und Richtern.

2. Über Rechtsfragen von grundsätzlicher Bedeutung entscheidet das Obergericht in der Besetzung mit fünf Richterinnen und Richtern.

3. Ist ein Rechtsmittel offensichtlich unzulässig oder offensichtlich begründet oder unbegründet, entscheidet die oder der Vorsitzende in einzelrichterlicher Kompetenz.

4. Auf Anordnung der oder des Vorsitzenden entscheidet das Obergericht in Dreierbesetzung über Angelegenheiten, für die eine einzelrichterliche Zuständigkeit vorgesehen ist, sowie in Fünferbesetzung über Angelegenheiten, für die eine Dreierbesetzung vorgesehen ist.

5. Das Gesetz kann für bestimmte Bereiche eine Fünferbesetzung oder eine einzelrichterliche Kompetenz vorsehen.

← Art. 37 GOG Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz (GOG) - Gegenstand Art. 39 GOG →

Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (38)

VR1 2025 74 · gr (Art. 43 cpv. 3 lett. b LGA i.u. all’art. 38 cpv. 3 LOG [CSC 173.000])

Appeal Dismissed for Untimely Filing of Residence Permit Revocation Challenge

Cited as the legal basis allowing the single judge to decide the case because the appeal and the request for reinstatement were manifestly inadmissible/unfounded.

SBK 2025 82 · gr (Art. 38 Abs. 3 GOG)

Dismissal of Unsigned Appeal Against Enforcement Proceedings

This provision authorizes the single-judge decision regarding the appeal procedure.

SBK 2025 74 · gr (Art. 38 Abs. 3 GOG)

Enforcement Order Reinstatement Denial Due to Untimely and Unsubstantiated Excuse

Cited as the basis for deciding the matter in a single-judge competency because the request was obviously unfounded.

SR2 2025 67 · gr (Art. 38 Abs. 3 GOG)

Procedural Appeal Regarding Untimely Correction of Formal Defect in Traffic Violation Appeal

This article was cited as the basis for the single-judge decision competence to rule on the case.

SBK 2025 78 · gr (Art. 38 Abs. 3 GOG)

Forced Sale Valuation Dispute

Applied to decide the evidently justified request through the competence of a single judge.

VR1 2025 54 · gr (Art. 38 Abs. 1 GOG)

Appeal Dismissed Regarding Lawful Extension of Custody Pending Deportation

Cited in the reasoning when detailing the composition of the chamber, but not in the final orders.

ZR1 2025 125 · gr (Art. 38 Abs. 3 GOG)

Appeal of Protective Placement Order Dismissed for Untimely Filing

This article governed the single-judge competency for issuing the decision.

SBK 2025 69 · gr (Art. 38 Abs. 3 GOG (BR 173.000))

Tax Enforcement Service Improper But Appeal Dismissed

Applied to render the decision in single-judge competence because the supervisory appeal proved to be manifestly unfounded.

SBK 2025 71 · gr (Art. 38 Abs. 3 GOG (BR 173.000))

Appeal Against Enforcement Measures Dismissed for Insufficient Specificity

Cited as the basis for the single-judge decision regarding the obviously unfounded appeal.

ZR1 2025 72 · gr (Art. 38 Abs. 3 GOG)

Guardianship Upheld Despite Objection of Capacity

Basis for the single judge to decide because the appeal was obviously unfounded.

SBK 2025 57 · gr (Art. 38 Abs. 3 GOG)

Supervisory Appeal Against Notice Affixed to Debtor's Door Does Not Constitute Appealable Enforcement Decision

This provision was cited as the basis for the single-judge decision because the appeal was obviously unfounded.

SBK 2025 52 · gr (Art. 38 Abs. 3 GOG (BR 173.000))

Seizure Notice Upheld Despite Appeal of Underlying Decision

This procedural rule is cited as the basis for the decision being rendered by a single judge because the appeal is manifestly unfounded.

ZR1 2025 63 · gr (Art. 38 Abs. 3 GOG)

Custody Review Delay Complaint Dismissed as Premature

Used because the appeal was obviously unfounded and thus the decision was made in single-judge competence.

SBK 2025 39 · gr (Art. 38 Abs. 3 GOG)

Appeal Against Enforcement Fees and Communication Method in Social Security Contribution Case

Applied because the supervisory appeal was deemed manifestly unfounded, allowing the decision to be rendered by a single judge.

SBK 2025 41 · gr (Art. 38 Abs. 3 GOG)

Creditor Appeal Dismissed in Enforcement Proceeding Over Invalid Continuation Request

Used to rule on the appeal in single-judge competence because the appeal proved obviously unfounded.