Appeal withdrawn after settlement in seizure proceedings

14.2004.41Autre juridiction23 juin 2004Dismissed

Extrait par Omnilex

Résumé Omnilex

In seizure proceedings, the appellants appealed against a seizure order issued by the Lugano debt-enforcement court. Before the appeal was notified to the respondent, the appellants informed the court that the parties had reached an agreement and asked for the appeal to be withdrawn. The appellate court therefore struck the appeal from the roll as moot. It held that the respondent was not entitled to any indemnity because the appeal had deliberately not been served to preserve the surprise effect of the seizure. The judicial fee of CHF 100 remained payable by the appellants, while CHF 150 of the advance was refunded.

Regeste Omnilex

Art. 21 LTG; withdrawal of an appeal in seizure proceedings and allocation of costs: where the appellants withdraw the appeal after a settlement, the appellate proceedings become moot and the case is struck from the roll. If service of the appeal is withheld in order to preserve the surprise effect of the seizure, the respondent is not entitled to an indemnity. Upon withdrawal, the judicial fee is fixed according to the procedural acts already performed and the value in dispute; any excess advance must be refunded.

Texte intégral

AIUTO RICERCA

Anteprima di stampa

Numero d'incarto: 14.2004.41

Data decisione, Autorità: 23.06.2004, CEF

Incarto n. 14.2004.41

Lugano 23 giugno 2004 CJ/fc/dp

In nome della Repubblica e Cantone del Ticino

La Camera di esecuzione e fallimenti del Tribunale d'appello

composta dei giudici:

Cometta, presidente, Pellegrini e Chiesa

segretario:

Jaques

statuendo sulla causa a procedura sommaria appellabili (inc. EF.2004.796) promossa con istanza 13 aprile 2004 da

  1. APPE1
  2. APPE2 entrambi rappr. dall' RAPP1

contro

APPO1 (D)

tendente all'ottenimento di un sequestro;

visto l’appello 19 aprile 2004 interposto da __________ APPE1 e __________ APPE2 contro il decreto di sequestro del 13 aprile 2004 della Segretaria assessore della Pretura di Lugano, Sezione 5 (inc. EF.2004.796);

preso atto che con scritto 7 giugno 2004 gli appellanti hanno chiesto di stralciare il ricorso senza ulteriori formalità, essendo stato trovato un accordo tra le parti;

considerato come la procedura in esame sia così divenuta priva d'oggetto;

rilevato che, conformemente alla prassi di questa Camera, l'appello non è stato notificato alla controparte per preservare l'effetto sorpresa del sequestro in caso di accoglimento dell'appello, sicché la parte appellata non ha diritto ad un'indennità;

atteso che in caso di ritiro, la tassa di giustizia è proporzionata agli atti compiuti, tenendo conto del valore litigioso (art. 21 LTG);

pronuncia:

  1. L'appello 19 aprile 2004 di APPE1 e APPE2, entrambi in __________, è stralciato dai ruoli.

  2. La tassa di giustizia di fr. 100.--, già anticipata dagli appellanti, rimane a loro carico. Non si assegna indennità.

  3. L’eccedenza di fr. 150.-- anticipata dagli appellanti viene loro restituita.

  4. Intimazione all'avv. __________ RAPP1, __________

Comunicazione alla Pretura di Lugano, Sezione 5.

Per la Camera di esecuzione e fallimenti del Tribunale d’appello

Il presidente Il segretario

Ultimo aggiornamento: 02.07.2026

  |  Informazioni legali  |  Requisiti minimi  |  Contatta il webmaster

Mots-clés

seizurewithdrawalmootnesscostsindemnitysettlementsurprise effect

Extrait par Omnilex

Question juridique clé

Whether the appeal against the seizure order should be removed from the docket after withdrawal following settlement.

Solution extraite

The appeal was struck from the docket because the proceedings had become moot after the appellants withdrew it following an agreement between the parties.

Motifs extraits

Once the appellants asked for dismissal without further formalities due to the settlement, there was no live controversy left to decide.

Question juridique clé

Whether the respondent was entitled to compensation.

Solution extraite

No compensation was awarded because the appeal had not been notified to the respondent in order to preserve the element of surprise in seizure proceedings.

Motifs extraits

Under the court's practice, when the appeal is not served to preserve the surprise effect of seizure, the respondent cannot claim an indemnity.

Question juridique clé

How court fees should be allocated after withdrawal.

Solution extraite

The judicial fee of CHF 100, already advanced, remained charged to the appellants, and the excess advance of CHF 150 was refunded.

Motifs extraits

In case of withdrawal, the fee is set proportionately to the acts performed and the amount in dispute, pursuant to Art. 21 LTG.

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.