Appeal declared inadmissible for lack of substantiation and exhaustion

5P.313/2001Tribunal Federal / Divisão Civil II4 de out. de 2001Dismissed

Abrir fonte

Extraído pela Omnilex

Resumo Omnilex

The Federal Court dealt with an appeal against a Lausanne district court judgment confirming protective measures for the spouses. It held that the filing could only be treated as a public-law appeal, but the arbitrariness complaint was both insufficiently reasoned and partly inadmissible for failure to exhaust cantonal remedies. The challenge to the refusal to bar the wife from leaving Vaud was likewise inadmissible because no properly argued violation of freedom of establishment was shown. The appeal was declared inadmissible and the appellant ordered to pay CHF 1,000 in court costs.

Sumário Omnilex

Art. 90 al. 1 let. b OJ; art. 86 al. 1 OJ; art. 36a OJ; admissibility of a public-law appeal against a cantonal decision confirming protective measures of the marital union. An arbitrariness complaint must be reasoned with precision and may only be raised after exhaustion of cantonal remedies. A constitutional grievance is inadmissible where the appellant merely seeks a different interpretation of the Constitution without showing, in a manner compliant with Art. 90 al. 1 let. b OJ, a concrete unlawful application of the relevant restrictions. The Federal Court may decide summarily under Art. 36a OJ where the inadmissibility is manifest.

Texto completo

[AZA 0/2]
5P.313/2001

IIe COUR CIVILE


4 octobre 2001

Composition de la Cour: M. Reeb, président, M. Raselli et
Mme Nordmann, juges. Greffier: M. Fellay.

______

Statuant sur le recours formé

par
P.________,

contre
l'arrêt rendu le 2 août 2001 par le Tribunal civil de l'arrondissement de Lausanne dans la cause qui oppose le recourant à T.________ P.________;

(mesures protectrices de l'union conjugale)

Considérant :

que l'arrêt attaqué confirme un prononcé de mesures protectrices de l'union conjugale;

que le recours formé contre cet arrêt ne peut être traité que comme un recours de droit public, la voie du recours en réforme étant en principe exclue (ATF 115 II 297);

que le grief d'arbitraire soulevé par le recourant, outre qu'il ne répond pas aux exigences posées par l'art. 90 al. 1 let. b OJ (cf. notamment ATF 117 Ia 393 consid. 1c), est irrecevable en vertu de l'art. 86 al. 1 OJ, faute d'épuisement des instances cantonales (cf. ATF 126 I 257);

que sa critique concernant le refus de la juridiction intimée d'interdire à son épouse de quitter le territoire vaudois est tout aussi irrecevable, dès lors que le recourant ne fait pas valoir, à juste titre d'ailleurs, une violation proprement dite de l'art. 24 Cst. (liberté d'établissement);

que s'il demande une "saine interprétation" de cette disposition, savoir une restriction du droit constitutionnel en question "dans l'intérêt des enfants et du cadre familial", il ne fait pas valoir toutefois, de façon conforme à l'art. 90 al. 1 let. b OJ, que le tribunal d'arrondissement aurait mal appliqué les prescriptions légales permettant une telle restriction;

Par ces motifs,

le Tribunal fédéral,

vu l'art. 36a OJ:

  1. Déclare le recours irrecevable.

  2. Met à la charge du recourant un émolument judiciaire de 1'000 fr.,

  3. Communique le présent arrêt en copie aux parties et au Tribunal civil de l'arrondissement de Lausanne.

_______
Lausanne, le 4 octobre 2001 FYC/frs

Au nom de la IIe Cour civile
du TRIBUNAL FEDERAL SUISSE :
Le Président,

Le Greffier,

Palavras-chave

family lawprotective measuresinadmissibilitysubstantiationexhaustion of remediesfreedom of establishmentarbitrarinesscourt costs

Extraído pela Omnilex

Questão jurídica principal

Whether the appeal was admissible as a public-law appeal and sufficiently substantiated.

Decisão extraída

The appeal was inadmissible because the arbitrariness complaint did not meet the statutory substantiation requirements and, in part, lacked exhaustion of cantonal remedies.

Fundamentação extraída

The court held that the challenged decision could only be reviewed as a public-law appeal; the arbitrariness argument failed under Art. 90(1)(b) OG and was barred by Art. 86(1) OG because cantonal remedies had not been exhausted.

Questão jurídica principal

Whether the refusal to prohibit the wife from leaving the canton could be reviewed as a constitutional complaint concerning freedom of establishment.

Decisão extraída

This complaint was also inadmissible because no proper violation of Art. 24 of the Constitution was shown and no legally sufficient challenge to the applicable restrictions was raised.

Fundamentação extraída

The court found that the appellant did not properly invoke a direct violation of freedom of establishment and, in any event, did not show in a manner compliant with Art. 90(1)(b) OG that the cantonal court misapplied the rules allowing such a restriction.

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.