Appeal struck out after withdrawal

52.1995.88Other CourtMar 31, 1995Withdrawn

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The appellant challenged a State Council decision imposing a fine for unauthorized deposit of agricultural tools and machinery in an motorway underpass. Before the administrative court, the appellant withdrew the appeal on 23 March 1995. The court held that the proceedings were thereby exhausted, struck the appeal from the docket, and ordered that no fees or costs be collected.

Omnilex headnote

Withdrawal of an administrative appeal; once the appellant withdraws the appeal, the proceedings are exhausted and the appeal is struck from the docket. In such a case, the court may order that no fees or costs be levied.

Full text

AIUTO RICERCA

Anteprima di stampa

Numero d'incarto: 52.1995.88

Data decisione, Autorità: 31.03.1995, TRAM

Incarto n. 52.95.00088 DP 53/95 leo

Lugano 31 marzo 1995

In nome della Repubblica e Cantone del Ticino

Il Tribunale cantonale amministrativo

composto dei giudici:

Lorenzo Anastasi, presidente, Raffaello Balerna e Stefano Bernasconi

segretario:

Leopoldo Crivelli

statuendo sul ricorso del 10 febbraio 1995 di


contro

la decisione 24 gennaio 1995 (n. 519) de Consiglio di Stato inerente una multa per deposito abusivo non autorizzato di attrezzi e macchinari agricoli nel sottopasso autostradale;

preso atto che in data 23 marzo 1995 il ricorrente ha comunicato di ritirare il ricorso;

considerato pertanto che il procedimento è così esaurito;

decreta:

  1. Il ricorso è stralciato dai ruoli.

  2. Non si prelevano né tasse, né spese.

Intimazione a:


Per il Tribunale cantonale amministrativo:

Il presidente: Il segretario:

Ultimo aggiornamento: 02.07.2026

  |  Informazioni legali  |  Requisiti minimi  |  Contatta il webmaster

Keywords

appeal withdrawaladministrative finestrike outcostsproceedings terminated

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the appeal should remain pending after the appellant withdrew it.

Extracted holding

The proceedings were terminated and the appeal was struck from the docket.

Extracted reasoning

Because the appellant notified the court on 23 March 1995 that the appeal was withdrawn, the proceeding was considered exhausted.

Key legal question

Whether court fees and costs should be charged.

Extracted holding

No fees or costs were levied.

Extracted reasoning

Following the withdrawal, the court ordered that no taxes or expenses be collected.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

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