Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
III 2018 152 • VG SZ III 2018 152 KI-generiert

Appeal Regarding Timeliness of Debt Enforcement Objection

Geschäftsnummer III 2018 152
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Schweiz · Kanton Schwyz (CH-SZ)
Entscheiddatum
Originalquelle öffnen Entscheidsuche-Spiegel Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The case involves an appeal against a prior administrative decision concerning the enforcement of a debt collection procedure initiated by the respondent. The central issue revolved around whether the appellant had validly filed an objection to the debt enforcement proceedings within the legally prescribed timeframe. The court reasoned that the documentation submitted by the appellant failed to demonstrate that the requisite objection was lodged with the competent authority before the statutory deadline, thereby upholding the prior decision and dismissing the appeal.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Appeal Regarding Timeliness of Debt Enforcement Objection: The central issue revolved around whether the appellant had validly filed an objection to the debt enforcement proceedings within the legally prescribed timeframe. The court reasoned that the documentation submitted by the appellant failed to demonstrate that the requisite objection was lodged with the competent authority before the statutory deadline, thereby upholding the prior decision and dismissing the appeal.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Rechtsvorschlag Vollstreckungsverfahren gesetzliche Frist verspätete Einwendungen Verwaltungsbehörde Vorherige Verwaltungsbeschwerde
KI-generiert
BEK 2021 114
Appeal of Debt Enforcement Proceeding Ruling
BEK 2019 145
Appeal Dismissed for Missed Objection Deadline in Debt Enforcement Proceedings
BEK 2022 158
Appeal Against Payment Order Objection in Debt Enforcement
BEK 2023 13
Appeal Against Debt Enforcement Proceedings Decision
BEK 2022 139
Challenge to Debt Enforcement Decision

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n III 2018 152 |\n |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 18. Dezember 2018 |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n lic.iur. Gion Tomaschett, Vizepräsident |\n \n|\n |\n Ruth Mikšovic-Waldis, Richterin Monica Huber-Landolt, Richterin |\n \n|\n |\n MLaw Darinka Balzarini, a.o. Gerichtsschreiberin |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Parteien |\n A.________, \n Beschwerdeführerin, |\n \n|\n |\n gegen |\n \n|\n |\n B.________, Domizil: Industriestrasse 7, 6440 Brunnen, \n B.________, 6431 Schwyz, \n Vorinstanz, |\n \n\n

\n