projetos

Reconsideration requests inadmissible under the new Lucerne CCP

JK 97 207/162Outro Tribunal29 de jun. de 1997Other

Abrir fonte

Extraído pela Omnilex

Resumo Omnilex

The text states that the new Lucerne CCP does not provide the reconsideration remedy known from administrative procedure law. Because the CCP exhaustively regulates proceedings and remedies, there is no room to import that remedy by analogy, including in summary UR proceedings; such requests are therefore generally inadmissible. At the same time, a summary UR decision is said not to have material res judicata effect, so a new application may be lodged and decided again if circumstances have changed, potentially leading to a modified decision.

Sumário Omnilex

§ 116 VRG; §§ 125-138, 185-244, 230ff. ZPO; reconsideration remedy under the new Lucerne CCP: no gap-filling importation of administrative procedural remedies where the code exhaustively regulates proceedings and legal remedies. The judge may not create a remedy omitted by the legislature; this applies equally to summary UR proceedings, so reconsideration requests are in principle inadmissible (consid. with reference to LGVE 1996 I Nr. 21 and later decisions). However, a summary UR decision lacks material res judicata effect: upon changed circumstances, a fresh application may be filed at any time and a new decision rendered that departs from the earlier one.

Texto completo

In der neuen ZPO ist der dem Verwaltungsrechtspflegeverfahren bekannte Rechtsbehelf der Wiedererwägung (§ 116 VRG) nicht vorgesehen. Die neue Luzerner ZPO nennt eine abschliessende Zahl von Verfahren (§§ 185-244 sowie §§ 125-138 ZPO) und Rechtsmitteln. Angesichts der Regelungsdichte der neuen Verfahrensordnung bleibt kein Raum mehr für die lückenfüllende Anwendung von verwaltungsrechtlichen Verfahrensvorschriften. Es ist nicht Sache des Richters, einen Rechtsbehelf einzuführen, den der Gesetzgeber nicht vorsah. Dies gilt auch für das (summarische) UR-Verfahren (§ 133 Abs. 3 ZPO i.V.m. §§ 230ff. ZPO; vgl. LGVE 1996 I Nr. 21), weshalb auf entsprechende Gesuche prinzipiell nicht einzutreten ist (ebenso Entscheide JK 96 381/12 vom 22.1.1997 und JK 97 123/120 vom 4.6.1997).

LGVE 1987 I Nr. 37 ist damit obsolet. Gemäss Max. XII Nr. 317 wird ein (summarischer) UR-Entscheid indes nicht materiell rechtskräftig, so dass aufgrund veränderter Verhältnisse jederzeit ein neues Gesuch gestellt und ein neuer Entscheid gefällt werden kann, durch welchen der ursprüngliche Entscheid abgeändert wird.

Palavras-chave

reconsiderationinadmissibilitysummary proceedingsmaterial res judicataprocedural remedieschanged circumstances

Extraído pela Omnilex

Questões jurídicas principais extraídas pela Omnilex

Questão jurídica principal

Whether a reconsideration remedy exists under the new Lucerne CCP for summary UR proceedings.

Decisão extraída

No. The new procedural code provides an exhaustive list of proceedings and remedies, leaving no room to import the reconsideration remedy from administrative procedure law.

Fundamentação extraída

Because the new CCP is highly detailed and exhaustively regulates proceedings and remedies, gap-filling by borrowing administrative procedural rules is impermissible; the court may not create a remedy the legislature did not provide.

Questão jurídica principal

Whether a summary UR decision has material res judicata effect preventing a later request after changed circumstances.

Decisão extraída

No. A summary UR decision does not acquire material res judicata effect; a new request may be filed at any time if circumstances have changed, and a new decision may alter the original one.

Fundamentação extraída

The text distinguishes inadmissibility of reconsideration as a procedural remedy from the absence of substantive finality of the UR decision itself, which allows renewed adjudication on changed facts.

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

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