Approval of court-appointed counsel fee note

11.1995.3Other CourtFeb 3, 1997Granted

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Civil Chamber of the Ticino Court of Appeal approved, by decree of 3 February 1997, the fee note submitted by the court-appointed lawyer for an appeal proceeding. The judge held that the claimed honorarium complied with the relevant tariff provisions and approved the note for CHF 1,013.25, consisting of CHF 847 in fees, CHF 104.40 in expenses, and CHF 61.85 in VAT.

Omnilex headnote

Art. 14 cpv. 1, Art. 17 cpv. 1 TOA; Art. 36 cpv. 3 LTG: the court approves a lawyer’s fee note where the claimed honorarium conforms to the tariff criteria and the statutory basis for compensation of appointed counsel. Review is limited to tariff compliance; if the calculation is consistent, the note is approved in the stated total amount, including expenses and VAT.

Full text

AIUTO RICERCA

Anteprima di stampa

Numero d'incarto: 11.1995.3

Data decisione, Autorità: 03.02.1997, ICCA

Incarto n. 11.95.00003

Lugano, 3 febbraio 1997

Repubblica e Cantone del Ticino Prima Camera civile Tribunale d'appello

Il giudice delegato

vista la nota professionale emessa il 24 gennaio 1997 dall’

avv. __________, __________

come patrocinatore d’ufficio di __________, __________, nella procedura di appello davanti a questa Camera;

ritenuto l’onorario conforme agli art. 14 cpv. 1 e 17 cpv. 1 TOA,

richiamato l’art. 36 cpv. 3 LTG,

decreta: 1. La nota professionale del 24 gennaio 1997 è così approvata:

– onorario fr. 847.–

– spese fr. 104.40

– IVA fr. 61.85

fr. 1013.25

  1. Intimazione all’avv. __________, __________.

Il giudice delegato

(Giorgio A. Bernasconi)

Ultimo aggiornamento: 02.07.2026

  |  Informazioni legali  |  Requisiti minimi  |  Contatta il webmaster

Keywords

legal aidlawyer's feestariffexpensesVATcourt-appointed counselappeal

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the professional fee note of the court-appointed counsel should be approved.

Extracted holding

The fee note was approved as compliant with the applicable fee rules.

Extracted reasoning

The judge found the honorarium consistent with Art. 14(1) and Art. 17(1) TOA, and referred to Art. 36(3) LTG.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.