Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
TA.2004.277 • TC NE TA.2004.277 AI generated

Appeal Inadmissible Due to Improper Jurisdiction: Appellant's Change of Domicile

Case Number TA.2004.277
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Switzerland · Canton of Neuchâtel (CH-NE)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Court Costs No costs imposed
Open official source Entscheidsuche mirror Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The administrative court declined jurisdiction and declared a submitted appeal inadmissible because, under the relevant law, jurisdiction for insurance matters rests with the court in the canton of the insured person's domicile at the time the appeal is filed, and the appellant had established a new domicile in the canton of Valais by the filing date of November 3, 2004, even though the appeal was initially filed with the court of Neuchâtel; consequently, the court transmitted the case ex officio to the Insurance Court of the canton of Valais without imposing costs.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 58 al.1 LPGA, Art. 86 al.3 aLAMal, Art. 64 LTF; Appeal Inadmissible Due to Improper Jurisdiction: Appellant's Change of Domicile: The administrative court declined jurisdiction and declared a submitted appeal inadmissible because, under the relevant law, jurisdiction for insurance matters rests with the court in the canton of the insured person's domicile at the time the appeal is filed, and the appellant had established a new domicile in the canton of Valais by the filing date of November 3, 2004, even though the appeal was initially filed with the court of Neuchâtel; consequently, the court transmitted the case ex officio to the Insurance Court of the canton of Valais without imposing costs.

Keywords

AI generated
change of domicile declining of jurisdiction administrative costs date of filing standing to appeal action for annulment Compétence à raison du lieu du TA.

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 58 al.1 LPGA
The court used this provision in its reasoning leading to the decision on jurisdiction, though it did not explicitly cite it in the final orders as the ground for ruling on inadmissibility or competence decline.
Art. 86 al.3 aLAMal
This provision was mentioned in the reasoning to contrast the previous law with the current applicable law.
Art. 64 LTF
This provision is implied by the decision not to charge court fees, relating to the handling of costs.
AI generated
CACIV.2020.50
Appeal Against Relocation Authorization Admissibility Ruling
CC.2005.165
Domicile in Divorce Jurisdiction
TA.2009.462
Residence Permit Transfer Recusal Challenge Dismissed
CDP.2019.46
Jurisdictional Transfer Due to Improper Appeal Following Annulment and Reopening of Administrative Procedure
CMPEA.2012.60
Curatorship Jurisdiction Transfer Appeal Regarding Treatment Residence Domicile

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 58 al.1 LPGA

The court used this provision in its reasoning leading to the decision on jurisdiction, though it did not explicitly cite it in the final orders as the ground for ruling on inadmissibility or competence decline.

Art. 86 al.3 aLAMal

This provision was mentioned in the reasoning to contrast the previous law with the current applicable law.

Art. 64 LTF

This provision is implied by the decision not to charge court fees, relating to the handling of costs.

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

Réf. : TA.2004.277-AMAL

C O N S I D E R A N T

que, en vertu de l'article 58 al.1 LPGA, le tribunal des assurances compétent est celui du canton de domicile de l’assuré ou d’une autre partie au moment du dépôt du recours,

que, par autre partie, il faut entendre le tiers ayant déposé recours (ATFA non publié du 05.12.2003 rendu en la cause H. [K 69/03]),

que, contrairement à la teneur de l'article 86 al.3 aLAMal, depuis l'entrée en vigueur de la LPGA, il n'y a plus de fors alternatifs à choix au domicile de l'assuré ou au siège de l'assureur, seul le premier subsistant (Kieser, ATSG-Kommentar, no 3, ad art.58), que L. s'est constitué un nouveau domicile dans le canton du Valais depuis le 31 août 2004, que, lorsqu'il a déposé son recours en date du 3 novembre 2004, il n'était ainsi plus domicilié dans le canton de Neuchâtel,

qu'il s'ensuit que la Cour de céans doit décliner sa compétence, à raison du lieu, et transmettre d'office la cause au Tribunal cantonal des assurances du canton du Valais,

que, partant, le recours doit être déclaré irrecevable, sans frais,

Par ces motifs*, LE TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIF

1. Décline sa compétence.

2. Déclare le recours irrecevable.

3. Transmet la cause au Tribunal des assurances du canton du Valais.

4. Dit qu'il n'est pas perçu de frais de justice.

Neuchâtel, le 29 mars 2005