Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
JK 05 9 1 • KG LU JK 05 9 1 Généré par l'IA

Land Registry Transfer Rejection Due to Missing Commercial Register Extract

Numéro de cause JK 05 9 1
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Lucerne (CH-LU)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The case concerns the rejection by the land registry office of an application to record the transfer of an agricultural business, spanning property in two cantons, under the Merger Act, which also involved the establishment of a lifelong right of residence and a right of first refusal. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that while the Merger Act permits a single public document for the transfer of land located across different cantons, the applicant failed to provide the required certified extract from the Commercial Register as mandated by the Cantonal Land Registry Ordinance to prove the transfer of ownership, rendering the registration inadmissible despite the simplified procedure offered by the Merger Act for such transfers.

Regeste Legislator

Officiel

§ 3 Abs. 2 BeurkG; Art. 18a Abs. 1 lit. f GBV; Art. 70 Abs. 2 FusG. Für die Übertragung von Grundstücken nach FusG in verschiedenen Kantonen genügt eine einzige öffentliche Urkunde. | Beurkundungsrecht

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
registre du commerce transmission de la propriété demande et procédure d’enregistrement bien-fonds agricole droit de séjour pièces justificatives manquantes

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA

Jurisprudence citée

Généré par l'IA
BGE 125 IV 81
Généré par l'IA

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 70 Abs. 2 FusG

This provision is explicitly mentioned in the decision's summary/heading which states the main finding regarding the sufficiency of a single public deed for cross-cantonal property transfers under the Merger Act (FusG).

Art. 18a Abs. 1 lit. f GBV

This provision, requiring a certified extract from the commercial register, is cited in the reasoning that leads to the ultimate confirmation of the refusal to register the transfer.

Art. 966 ZGB

This provision is cited in the final sentence of the substantive reasoning section to justify that the registration refusal was ultimately lawful.

Art. 24 Abs. 1 GBV

This provision is cited in the final sentence of the substantive reasoning section to justify that the registration refusal was ultimately lawful.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

Rechtsprechung Luzern

Instanz: · Obergericht

Abteilung: · Justizkommission

Rechtsgebiet: · Beurkundungsrecht

Entscheiddatum: · 02.06.2005

Fallnummer: · JK 05 9.1

LGVE: · 2005 I Nr. 26

Leitsatz: · § 3 Abs. 2 BeurkG; Art. 18a Abs. 1 lit. f GBV; Art. 70 Abs. 2 FusG. Für die Übertragung von Grundstücken nach FusG in verschiedenen Kantonen genügt eine einzige öffentliche Urkunde.

Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.