The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
9C_898/2009•Appeal inadmissible for insufficient reasoning
9C_898/2009Federal Supreme Court / Public Law Division IIINov 4, 2009Inadmissible
Extracted by Omnilex
B. appealed a judgment of the Federal Administrative Court in an invalidity insurance case and implicitly sought legal aid. The Federal Supreme Court held that the appeal failed to satisfy the statutory reasoning requirements because it merely repeated arguments already rejected below and did not show any factual inaccuracy or legal error. The appeal was therefore manifestly inadmissible in simplified proceedings. As the filing had no prospect of success, legal aid was refused. The court waived judicial costs.
Art. 42 LTF, art. 97 al. 1 LTF, art. 108 al. 1 let. b LTF; admissibility of a Federal Supreme Court appeal. An appeal must contain conclusions, reasons and evidence and must, in a sufficiently substantiated manner, indicate why the challenged decision violates federal law or rests on manifestly incorrect findings of fact. A mere repetition of the arguments presented below, without engagement with the lower court's reasoning, does not satisfy the duty to state reasons. If the defect is evident, the appeal is to be declared manifestly inadmissible in simplified proceedings under art. 108 para. 1 let. b LTF. A request for legal aid must be refused where the appeal is devoid of prospects of success (art. 64 LTF); in such circumstances, the court may waive costs under art. 66 LTF.
{T 0/2}
9C_898/2009
Arrêt du 4 novembre 2009
IIe Cour de droit social
Composition
M. le Juge U. Meyer, Président.
Greffier: M. Cretton.
Parties
B.________,
recourant,
contre
Caisse suisse de compensation, avenue Edmond-Vaucher, 1203 Genève,
intimée.
Objet
Assurance-invalidité,
recours contre le jugement de la IIIe Cour du Tribunal administratif fédéral du 18 août 2009.
Vu:
le recours interjeté par B.________ à l'encontre du jugement de la IIIe Cour du Tribunal administratif fédéral du 18 août 2009 ainsi que la requête d'assistance judiciaire implicite qu'il contient,
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 déposé céans, dont le contenu correspond fondamentalement aux arguments invoqués devant l'autorité de première instance, qui y a répondu de manière exhaustive, ne permet pas de comprendre en quoi les constatations des premiers juges seraient inexactes, selon l'art. 97 al. 1 LTF, ni en quoi l'acte attaqué serait 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 manifestement irrecevable selon la procédure simplifiée mentionnée à l'art. 108 al. 1 let. b LTF,
que, le recours étant voué à l'échec, la requête d'assistance judiciaire ne peut être admise (art. 64 al. 1 in fine LTF),
que, vu les circonstances, il convient de renoncer à la perception des frais judiciaires (art. 66 al. 1 deuxième phrase LTF),
par ces motifs, le Président prononce:
1.
Le recours est irrecevable.
2.
La requête d'assistance judiciaire est rejetée.
3.
Il n'est pas perçu de frais judiciaires.
4.
Le présent arrêt est communiqué aux parties, à la IIIe Cour du Tribunal administratif fédéral et à l'Office fédéral des assurances sociales.
Lucerne, le 4 novembre 2009
Au nom de la IIe Cour de droit social
du Tribunal fédéral suisse
Le Président: Le Greffier:
Meyer Cretton
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether the appeal met the Federal Supreme Court's reasoning requirements under Art. 42 LTF and Art. 97 LTF.
The appeal did not explain sufficiently why the findings of the lower court were inaccurate or why the challenged judgment was unlawful.
The brief essentially repeated the arguments already presented below and failed to engage with the lower court's exhaustive reasoning.
Whether the appeal could be dealt with under the simplified procedure of Art. 108 para. 1 let. b LTF.
Yes; the manifestly inadmissible appeal was decided in simplified proceedings.
Because the filing did not satisfy the statutory requirements of Art. 42 LTF, it was manifestly inadmissible.
Whether legal aid should be granted.
No; the request was denied because the appeal had no prospects of success.
An appeal that is bound to fail cannot justify legal aid under Art. 64 LTF.
Whether court costs should be charged.
No court costs were collected.
Given the circumstances, the court waived the recovery of judicial costs under Art. 66 LTF.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.