Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
30 09 14 • KG LU 30 09 14 AI generated

Guardianship Authority's Refusal of Legal Assistance Without Personal Hearing Upheld on Procedural Grounds

Case Number 30 09 14
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Switzerland · Canton of Lucerne (CH-LU)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Court Costs Borne by public authority
Open official source Entscheidsuche mirror Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal reviewed a case where a guardianship authority dismissed a request for a legal assistance arrangement ("Beistandschaft") based on the petitioner's subsequent contradictory statements made via telephone, without conducting a mandatory personal hearing as typically required by law for ordering such measures. The Court ruled that since the authority ultimately *refused* to impose a measure, thereby maintaining the status quo regarding the individual's legal capacity, the strict procedural requirement for a personal hearing under relevant federal and cantonal provisions, including the right to be heard, was not violated; consequently, the lower administrative court erred in shifting the costs of the appeal proceedings to the municipality based on an alleged severe procedural defect.

Legislator headnote

Official

Art. 29 Abs. 2 BV; Art. 394 und 397 Abs. 1 ZGB; § 44 Abs. 1 EGZGB; §§ 199 Abs. 3 und 201 Abs. 2 VRG. Wenn die Vormundschaftsbehörde vor der Nichtanordnung einer Beistandschaft nach Art. 394 ZGB darauf verzichtet, die betroffene Person persönlich anzuhören, so verletzt sie damit weder die bundes- und kantonalrechtlichen Verfahrensvorschriften des Vormundschaftsrechts noch den grundrechtlichen Anspruch der Beschwerdeführerin auf rechtliches Gehör. | Familienrecht

Keywords

AI generated
guardianship authority mandatory personal hearing procedural rights administrative dismissal legal capacity legal aid proceedings

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 29 Abs. 2 BV
This constitutional provision was cited in the dispositive to confirm that the authority's refusal to hear the party did not violate her right to be heard.
Art. 394 ZGB
This article defining the basis for establishing a legal guardianship (Beistandschaft) was cited in the dispositive as part of the context justifying the decision regarding the hearing obligation.
Art. 374 Abs. 1 ZGB
Art. 370 ZGB
Art. 374 ZGB
Art. 397 Abs. 1 ZGB
This provision extending procedural rules to legal guardianship matters was cited in the dispositive as part of the context justifying the decision regarding the hearing obligation.
Art. 397 ZGB
Art. 393 Ziff. 2 oder

Cited Case Law

AI generated
BGE 133 I 270
Federal Supreme Court Ruling on Proportionality of Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention
BGE 127 I 54
Challenge to Judgment Based on Psychiatric Report Lacking Personal Examination
BGE 130 II 425
Swiss Federal Supreme Court on GPS Employee Monitoring and Proportionality
BGE 125 I 209
Exclusivity Concession on Public Advertising Space Not Public Procurement
AI generated
RRE Nr 2704
Appeal Against Legal Assistance Decision Based on Unverified Petition and Lack of Hearing
30 00 13
Guardianship Appointment Without Considering Affected Parties' Wishes
JGKD 2002 1
Appeal Against Preliminary Deprivation of Legal Capacity Due to Procedural Flaws and Violation of Right to be Heard
1C 12 39
Denial of Free Legal Aid Appeal and Procedural Hearing Requirements

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 199 Abs. 3 VRG

This provision was cited in the dispositive because the court found no basis for imposing costs on the municipality ( Gemeinde A.) as no gross procedural defect or evident breach of law occurred.

§ 201 Abs. 2 VRG

This provision was cited in the dispositive because the court found no basis for awarding compensation for legal costs to the opposing party (Beschwerdeführerin) as no gross procedural defect or evident breach of law occurred.

Art. 29 Abs. 2 BV

This constitutional provision was cited in the dispositive to confirm that the authority's refusal to hear the party did not violate her right to be heard.

Art. 394 ZGB

This article defining the basis for establishing a legal guardianship (Beistandschaft) was cited in the dispositive as part of the context justifying the decision regarding the hearing obligation.

Art. 397 Abs. 1 ZGB

This provision extending procedural rules to legal guardianship matters was cited in the dispositive as part of the context justifying the decision regarding the hearing obligation.

§ 44 Abs. 1 EGZGB

This cantonal provision establishing a mandatory hearing obligation was cited in the dispositive as part of the context justifying the decision regarding the hearing obligation.

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 →

Full text

Rechtsprechung Luzern

Instanz: · Obergericht

Abteilung: · II. Kammer

Rechtsgebiet: · Familienrecht

Entscheiddatum: · 01.09.2009

Fallnummer: · 30 09 14

LGVE: · 2009 I Nr. 40

Leitsatz: · Art. 29 Abs. 2 BV; Art. 394 und 397 Abs. 1 ZGB; § 44 Abs. 1 EGZGB; §§ 199 Abs. 3 und 201 Abs. 2 VRG. Wenn die Vormundschaftsbehörde vor der Nichtanordnung einer Beistandschaft nach Art. 394 ZGB darauf verzichtet, die betroffene Person persönlich anzuhören, so verletzt sie damit weder die bundes- und kantonalrechtlichen Verfahrensvorschriften des Vormundschaftsrechts noch den grundrechtlichen Anspruch der Beschwerdeführerin auf rechtliches Gehör.

Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.