progetti

Federal appeal inadmissible for insufficient reasoning

9C_589/2009Tribunale federale / III divisione di diritto pubblico17 set 2009Dismissed

Apri la fonte

Estratto da Omnilex

Sintesi Omnilex

The appellant, represented by J.________, challenged a Vaud cantonal social insurance court judgment that had declared her appeal inadmissible in a health-insurance dispute with ASSURA. The Federal Court held that the federal appeal did not comply with Art. 42 LTF because it argued the merits and territorial jurisdiction issues instead of attacking the inadmissibility reasoning. The appeal was therefore declared inadmissible in simplified procedure. Legal aid was refused because the appeal had no prospect of success, and court costs of CHF 500 were imposed on the appellant. The suspensive-effect request became moot.

Massima Omnilex

Art. 42 LTF; Art. 108 al. 1 let. b LTF; insufficient reasoning of the federal appeal; inadmissibility in simplified procedure. A federal appeal must state conclusions and, at least succinctly, why the challenged decision violates federal law. Where the appeal does not engage with the decisive reasoning of the lower judgment but merely repeats arguments on the merits or on issues not decisive for the appealed inadmissibility ruling, the requirements of Art. 42 LTF are not met. The Federal Court then may declare the appeal inadmissible under Art. 108 al. 1 let. b LTF. A request for legal aid must be refused when the appeal is manifestly devoid of prospects of success (Art. 64 LTF); judicial costs are charged to the unsuccessful appellant (Art. 66 LTF).

Testo completo

{T 0/2}
9C_589/2009

Arrêt du 17 septembre 2009
IIe Cour de droit social

Composition
M. le Juge U. Meyer, Président.
Greffier: M. Cretton.

Parties
P.________,
agissant par J.________,
recourante,

contre

ASSURA, Assurance maladie et accident, Z.i. En Budron A1, 1052 Le Mont-sur-Lausanne,
intimée.

Objet
Assurance-maladie,

recours contre le jugement de la Cour des assurances sociales du Tribunal cantonal vaudois du 11 mai 2009.

Vu:
le recours interjeté le 3 juillet 2009 par P.________ à l'encontre du jugement d'irrecevabilité de la Cour des assurances sociales du Tribunal cantonal vaudois du 11 mai 2009,

considérant:
qu'aux termes de l'art. 42 LTF, le recours doit indiquer les conclusions, les motifs et les moyens de preuve (al. 1) et exposer succinctement en quoi l'acte attaqué est contraire au droit (al. 2),
que le recours, dirigé contre un jugement d'irrecevabilité et ne comportant que des arguments sur le fond, ne contient pas une motivation topique valable (cf. notamment ATF 123 V 335, 118 Ib 134; DTA 2002 no 7 p. 61 consid. 2),
que l'argumentation de la recourante a - pour l'essentiel - trait à la compétence ratione loci de la juridiction cantonale alors que le jugement attaqué déclare le recours irrecevable faute de conclusions claires et de motifs suffisants,
que l'on ne peut pas déduire en quoi les constatations des premiers juges seraient inexactes au sens de l'art. 97 al. 1 LTF ni en quoi le jugement entrepris serait manifestement contraire au droit,
que le recours ne répond ainsi pas aux exigences de l'art. 42 al. 1 et 2 LTF et doit être déclaré irrecevable selon la procédure simplifiée mentionnée à l'art. 108 al. 1 let. b LTF,
que l'échec prévisible des conclusions de la recourante commande le rejet de sa requête d'assistance judiciaire (art. 64 al. 1 LTF) et sa condamnation au paiement des frais judiciaires (art. 66 al. 1 et 3 LTF),
que la requête d'effet suspensif n'a plus d'objet si tant est qu'elle en ait eu un,

par ces motifs, le Président prononce:

1.
Le recours est irrecevable.

2.
Les frais judiciaires, arrêtés à 500 fr., sont mis à la charge de la recourante.

3.
Le présent arrêt est communiqué aux parties, à la Cour des assurances sociales du Tribunal cantonal vaudois et à l'Office fédéral de la santé publique.

Lucerne, le 17 septembre 2009
Au nom de la IIe Cour de droit social
du Tribunal fédéral suisse
Le Président: Le Greffier:

Meyer Cretton

Parole chiave

inadmissibilityinsufficient reasoninglegal aidcourt costssuspensive effectsocial insurance

Estratto da Omnilex

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Omnilex

Questione giuridica chiave

Whether the federal appeal met the pleading requirements of Art. 42 LTF

Decisione estratta

No. The appeal did not contain a proper challenge to the reasoning of the cantonal judgment and was therefore inadmissible.

Motivazione estratta

The filing addressed the merits and mainly questioned territorial jurisdiction, while the contested judgment rested on the lack of clear conclusions and sufficient reasons. It did not show how the cantonal findings were incorrect or the judgment unlawful.

Questione giuridica chiave

Whether the request for legal aid should be granted

Decisione estratta

No. The appeal had no foreseeable chance of success.

Motivazione estratta

Because the appeal was inadmissible for lack of topically adequate reasoning, success was unlikely.

Questione giuridica chiave

Whether the request for suspensive effect remained pending

Decisione estratta

It had no purpose.

Motivazione estratta

Once the appeal was declared inadmissible, the suspensive-effect request became moot.

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.