Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
1B_230/2018 AI generated

Company Withdraws Second Appeal After Supreme Court Noted Mootness Due to Identical Subsequent Filing

Case Number 1B_230/2018
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Switzerland · Federal Supreme Court (BGer / BGE) (CH)
Decision Date
Outcome struck_off
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The case involves a procedural dispute where a company filed a constitutional appeal against the federal prosecution office and various judicial bodies, claiming denial of justice. Earlier, the Federal Tribunal had dismissed a related appeal for denial of justice, which prompted the company to submit a new appeal shortly thereafter. However, the company later indicated that it considered the matter resolved, effectively withdrawing its appeal. Consequently, the court decided to discontinue the case without imposing any judicial fees.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 73 PCF, Art. 71 LTF, art. 32 al. 2 LTF, art. 66 al. 1, 2e phrase LTF; Company Withdraws Second Appeal After Supreme Court Noted Mootness Due to Identical Subsequent Filing: Earlier, the Federal Tribunal had dismissed a related appeal for denial of justice, which prompted the company to submit a new appeal shortly thereafter. However, the company later indicated that it considered the matter resolved, effectively withdrawing its appeal. Consequently, the court decided to discontinue the case without imposing any judicial fees.

Keywords

AI generated
withdrawal of criminal complaint action for annulment date of filing reconsideration of an earlier decision motion for recusal standing to appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 73 PCF
Used implicitly via Art. 71 LTF to justify striking the case from the roll following withdrawal.
Art. 71 LTF
Cited as the basis for applying Art. 73 PCF for striking the case from the roll due to withdrawal.
art. 32 al. 2 LTF
Cited in connection with the procedural step of withdrawing the appeal, leading to the case being struck from the roll.
art. 66 al. 1, 2e phrase LTF
Cited in connection with striking the case from the roll without court fees.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
1B_91/2018
Company v. Federal Criminal Court Appeals Chamber (Procedural Delay)
AI generated
4A_469/2023
Company Withdraws Appeal Concerning Security for Costs
6B_781/2013
Appeal Withdrawal Renders Case Moot
5A_899/2022
Mootness of Appeal Due to Subsequent Judicial Action
6B_922/2014
Appeal Withdrawal Due to Mootness and Manifest Error in Lower Court Decision
4A_459/2015
Mootness of Appeal Due to Subsequent Lower Court Decision on Merits

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 32 al. 2 LTF

Cited in connection with the procedural step of withdrawing the appeal, leading to the case being struck from the roll.

art. 66 al. 1, 2e phrase LTF

Cited in connection with striking the case from the roll without court fees.

art. 71 LTF

Cited as the basis for applying Art. 73 PCF for striking the case from the roll due to withdrawal.

art. 73 PCF

Used implicitly via Art. 71 LTF to justify striking the case from the roll following withdrawal.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Subsequent Decisions Citing This Judgment (1)

2021.03.12.sr.1 (2021-03-12) · bl
Appeals Court Modifies Convictions for Breach of Trust and Embezzlement, Reduces Sentence Due to Delay.
«…om 8. Juni 2020 veran- lasste Verfahrenstrennung sei bundesrechtswidrig, kann auf das Urteil des Bundesgerichtes (BGer) 1B_230/2018 vom 8. Oktober 2019 verwiesen werden. In diesem wurde das Vorliegen eines sachlichen Grundes für die von der Vorinstanz…»

Full text

Bundesgericht

Tribunal fédéral

Tribunale federale

Tribunal federal

1B_230/2018

Ordonnance du 4 juin 2018

Ire Cour de droit public

Composition

M. le Juge fédéral Merkli, Président.

Greffier : M. Parmelin.

Participants à la procédure

A.________ Ltd,

recourante,

contre

Ministère public de la Confédération.

Objet

Procédure pénale; déni de justice,

recours constitutionnel contre le Ministère public de la Confédération, la Cour des plaintes du Tribunal pénal fédéral et le Tribunal fédéral.

Vu :

l'arrêt rendu le 20 mars 2018 par le Tribunal fédéral dans la cause 1B_91/2018 qui rejette le recours pour déni de justice formé le 12 février 2018 par A.________ Ltd à l'encontre de la Cour des plaintes du Tribunal pénal fédéral,

le " recours constitutionnel " adressé le 9 avril 2018 au Tribunal fédéral aux termes duquel A.________ Ltd conclut à l'annulation de cet arrêt et à l'admission de son recours du 12 février 2018,

le renvoi de l'avis de réception du recours par A.________ Ltd avec la mention manuscrite selon laquelle la cause a été liquidée (" hat sich erledigt ") le 8 mai 2018 avec le nouveau recours pour déni de justice déposé à cette date au Tribunal fédéral contre la Cour des plaintes du Tribunal pénal fédéral.

Considérant :

qu'il convient d'assimiler cette démarche à un retrait de recours et de rayer la cause du rôle sans frais ( art. 73 PCF par renvoi de l' art. 71 LTF ; art. 32 al. 2 et 66 al. 1, 2

ème phrase, LTF).

Par ces motifs, le Président ordonne :

1. La cause est rayée du rôle par suite de retrait du recours.

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

3. La présente ordonnance est communiquée à la recourante, au Ministère public de la Confédération et à la Cour des plaintes du Tribunal pénal fédéral.

Lausanne, le 4 juin 2018

Au nom de la Ire Cour de droit public

du Tribunal fédéral suisse

Le Président : Merkli

Le Greffier : Parmelin