Legislator Case Law & Legislation
RE.1995.0065 • TC VD RE.1995.0065 AI generated

Mootness of Incidental Appeal Following Final Judgment on Merits

Case Number RE.1995.0065
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Switzerland · Canton of Vaud (CH-VD)
Decision Date
Outcome struck_off
Court Costs No costs imposed

Legislator summary

AI generated

A municipality filed an incidental appeal against a procedural decision made by an investigating judge concerning a primary appeal filed by an individual against a departmental decision. The Administrative Tribunal ruled that because it had subsequently issued a final judgment on the merits of the primary case, the incidental appeal dealing with the procedural matter, specifically an order on a suspensive effect, had become moot and was therefore struck from the record without costs.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 52 LJPA; Mootness of Incidental Appeal Following Final Judgment on Merits: The Administrative Tribunal ruled that because it had subsequently issued a final judgment on the merits of the primary case, the incidental appeal dealing with the procedural matter, specifically an order on a suspensive effect, had become moot and was therefore struck from the record without costs.

Keywords

AI generated
procedural orders incidental proceedings effects of the judgment appealable interlocutory decision statutory ground for exclusion preliminary ruling procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
AI generated

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 52 LJPA

This provision was mentioned in the 'vu' section, but was not explicitly cited in the dispositive orders to justify the decision.

I.

The decision formally rules to strike the incidental appeal from the roll due to lack of object, even though no specific legal article is cited for this action in this numbered point.

II.

The decision rules that the present ruling is rendered without costs, which falls under cost provisions.

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

CANTON DE VAUD

TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIF

Arrêt incident du 17 janvier 1996

sur le recours interjeté par la Municipalité de Prilly,

contre

la décision du juge instructeur du 20 octobre 1995 (AC 95/189).

\* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \*

Composition de la section: M. Jacques Giroud, président; M. Alain Zumsteg et M. Pierre-André Marmier, juges.

vu le recours interjeté par Bernard Obrist contre une décision du Département des travaux publics, de l'aménagement et des transports du 7 août 1995, vu la décision sur effet suspensif rendue le 20 octobre 1995 par le juge instructeur du Tribunal administratif,

vu le recours incident interjeté contre cette décision par la Municipalité de Prilly en date du 31 octobre 1995,

vu l'arrêt au fond rendu le 20 décembre 1995 dans la cause AC 95/189, vu l'art. 52 LJPA,

considérant qu'en statuant au fond, le Tribunal administratif a rendu sans objet la procédure incidente,

la section des recours du Tribunal administratif arrête:

I. Le recours incident interjeté par la Municipalité de Prilly et enregistré sous la référence RE 95/065 est rayé du rôle, faute d'objet.

II. Le présent arrêt est rendu sans frais.

mp/Lausanne, le 17 janvier 1996

Le président:

Le présent arrêt est communiqué aux destinataires de l'avis d'envoi ci-joint