projects

Appeal declared inadmissible for lack of reasons and prayers

cr-2006-0355Cantonal CourtAug 21, 2006Inadmissible

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The appellant challenged a decision of the Service des automobiles et de la navigation but filed an appeal that contained neither reasons nor conclusions and did not attach the contested decision. After the court granted a deadline to cure these defects and warned of inadmissibility, the appellant took no further action. The single judge therefore removed the case from the docket and declared the appeal inadmissible under Art. 35(2) LJPA, ordering the decision without costs.

Omnilex headnote

Art. 35 al. 2 LJPA; inadmissibility of an appeal lacking reasons and conclusions and not cured within the fixed time limit. An appeal that does not satisfy the mandatory formal requirements may be declared inadmissible when the court sets a deadline to remedy the defect and expressly warns of the consequence of non-compliance. If the appellant remains inactive by expiry of that deadline, the case is struck from the roll without examination of the merits.

Full text

Canton de Vaud TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIF Av. Eugène-Rambert 15 1014 Lausanne

Chambre de la circulation routière 021 316 12 53

Communication adressée aux destinataires mentionnés au verso ou en annexe

Exemplaire pour

COPIE DOSSIER

Lausanne, le 21 août 2006

CR.2006.0355 (PJ) Recours X c/ décision du Service des automobiles et de la navigation du 25 juillet 2006

DECISION

Le juge instructeur,

vu le recours déposé le 3 août 2006 ne contenant ni motifs, ni conclusions, mais se bornant à demander un entretien au tribunal afin de prendre connaissance du rapport de police et débattre de la sanction encourue,

vu l'accusé de réception du tribunal du 4 août 2006 impartissant au recourant un délai au 14 août 2006 pour indiquer les motifs et conclusions du recours et transmettre la décision attaquée, faute de quoi le recours serait déclaré irrecevable,

constatant qu'à l'échéance de ce délai, le recourant n'a pas donné suite à l'injonction du tribunal,

considérant que, conformément à l'art. 35 al. 2 LJPA, la cause doit être rayée du rôle,

d é c i d e :

I. le recours est irrecevable;

II. la présente décision est rendue sans frais.

Le juge instructeur:

Pierre Journot

Liste des destinataires

identité

qualité

adresse

X

recourant

Monsieur XXXX

Service des automobiles et de la navigation

autorité intimée

Service des automobiles et de la navigation Avenue du Grey 110 1014 Lausanne

Keywords

inadmissibilityformal requirementsappealdeadlinecure of defectsroad traffic administration

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the appeal was admissible despite lacking reasons, conclusions, and the challenged decision.

Extracted holding

No. Because the appellant did not comply with the court's order to complete the filing by the deadline, the appeal had to be removed from the docket.

Extracted reasoning

The appeal contained neither reasons nor conclusions, and the appellant failed to remedy this deficiency after being warned that non-compliance would lead to inadmissibility; under Art. 35(2) LJPA, the case had to be struck from the roll.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

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