The AI workspace for legal professionals

  • Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
  • Document automation
  • Matter management
  • Hosted in the EU and Switzerland

Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)

Try for freeBook a demo

Federal appeal inadmissible for insufficient reasoning

5A_238/2008Federal Supreme Court / Civil Division IIApr 17, 2008Dismissed

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The appellant challenged a cantonal decision concerning the appointment of a tutor for his daughter. The Federal Supreme Court held that the appeal did not comply with the statutory motivation requirements, since it did not adequately address the cantonal procedural ruling or identify a federal-law or constitutional violation. The appeal was therefore declared inadmissible in summary procedure. Owing to the circumstances, the court ordered that no judicial fees be collected.

Omnilex headnote

Art. 106 al. 2 LTF, art. 108 al. 1 let. b LTF; admissibility of a civil appeal against a cantonal procedural decision. A federal civil appeal must contain specific reasoning showing, in a legally sufficient manner, which federal rights or constitutional guarantees were violated by the challenged decision. Where the appellant merely disputes the application of cantonal procedural law without substantiated reference to a cognizable federal violation, the appeal is manifestly inadmissible and may be disposed of in summary procedure (consid. 1). The waiver of court costs under art. 66 al. 2 LTF is discretionary and may be ordered in light of the circumstances (consid. 2).

Full text

{T 0/2}
5A_238/2008

Arrêt du 17 avril 2008
IIe Cour de droit civil

Composition
M. le Juge Raselli, Président.
Greffier: M. Braconi.

Parties
X.________,
recourant,

contre

Autorité tutélaire de Damphreux,
intimée.

Objet
nomination d'une tutrice,

recours contre l'arrêt de la Chambre administrative du Tribunal cantonal du canton du Jura du 28 février 2008.

Considérant:

que la juridiction précédente a déclaré irrecevable, faute de motivation suffisante, le recours formé par le recourant à l'encontre d'une décision nommant une tutrice à sa fille;
que l'arrêt attaqué se fonde sur le droit de procédure cantonal, dont la fausse application ne peut être dénoncée dans un recours en matière civile (cf. art. 72 al. 2 let. b ch. 6 LTF) qu'en tant qu'elle constitue une violation du droit fédéral, notamment d'un droit constitutionnel (ATF 133 III 462 consid. 2.3 p. 466);
que, cependant, l'argumentation du recourant - pour autant qu'elle soit intelligible - ne répond nullement aux exigences légales de motivation (art. 106 al. 2 LTF; cf. à ce sujet: ATF 133 III 393 consid. 6 p. 397);
que, dès lors, le présent recours doit être déclaré irrecevable par voie de procédure simplifiée (art. 108 al. 1 let. b LTF);
que, compte tenu des circonstances de l'espèce, il y a lieu de statuer sans frais (cf. art. 66 al. 2, 2e phrase, LTF);

par ces motifs, le Président prononce:

1.
Le recours est irrecevable.

2.
Il n'est pas perçu de frais judiciaires.

3.
Le présent arrêt est communiqué aux parties et au Tribunal cantonal du canton du Jura (Chambre administrative).
Lausanne, le 17 avril 2008
Au nom de la IIe Cour de droit civil
du Tribunal fédéral suisse
Le Président: Le Greffier:

Keywords

inadmissibilitymotivation requirementsummary procedurecourt coststutorship

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the federal civil appeal was admissible despite the appellant's insufficient reasoning.

Extracted holding

The appeal was inadmissible because the appellant's submissions did not satisfy the statutory requirement of proper reasoning.

Extracted reasoning

The complaint attacked the cantonal procedural law only insofar as it could amount to a violation of federal law or constitutional rights. The appellant's argumentation, to the extent understandable, did not meet the motivation requirements of Art. 106(2) LTF, so summary inadmissibility under Art. 108(1)(b) LTF was warranted.

Key legal question

Whether court costs should be charged.

Extracted holding

No judicial fees were imposed in view of the circumstances.

Extracted reasoning

The court exercised discretion to decide the matter without costs under Art. 66(2) LTF.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

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