Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1F_38/2016 Generato dall'IA

Application for Revision of Custody Release Denial Dismissed

Numero d'incarto 1F_38/2016
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Tribunale federale (TF / DTF) (CH)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The case revolves around a request for revision filed by an individual after an earlier court ruling on November 10, 2016, concerning a release from detention was dismissed. The applicant sought to have the earlier judgment reconsidered and criticized it on various points, although he did not cite any legally recognized grounds for such a revision. The court decided not to proceed with the request and denied the application for free legal assistance, citing the likelihood of the case being unsuccessful, while waiving court costs due to the circumstances.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 127 BGG, Art. 64 Abs. 1 BGG, Art. 66 al. 1 LTF, Art. 93 BGG; Application for Revision of Custody Release Denial Dismissed: The applicant sought to have the earlier judgment reconsidered and criticized it on various points, although he did not cite any legally recognized grounds for such a revision. The court decided not to proceed with the request and denied the application for free legal assistance, citing the likelihood of the case being unsuccessful, while waiving court costs due to the circumstances.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
revisione di una decisione spese di gratuito patrocinio modifica dell'autorità parentale revoca della sospensione condizionale ritiro della domanda di revisione azione di contestazione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art. 127 BGG
The Tribunal decided not to enter into the merits of the revision request without exchange of briefs, citing this procedural article.
Art. 64 Abs. 1 BGG
The request for pro bono legal aid (unentgeltliche Rechtspflege) was rejected based on this provision because the claim was deemed hopeless.
Art. 66 al. 1 LTF
This provision concerning costs is implied by the decision not to charge court fees (Punkt 3) and not to award party compensation (Punkt 4), although it is not explicitly cited in those points.
Art. 93 BGG
This appears to be a mistake in the extraction rule as the dispositive itself does not cite Art. 93 BGG. However, reviewing the dispositive: Point 1 indicates non-admission, which is typically grounded in Art. 93 BGG or relevant admissibility articles, but Art. 93 BGG is not explicitly listed in points 1-4.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
1B_376/2016
Swiss Federal Supreme Court Upholds Detention of Repeat Offender Convicted of Unauthorized Dentistry and Fraud
Generato dall'IA
7F_29/2025
Petitioner's Request for Revision Regarding Refusal to Entertain Appeal Dismissed
5F_35/2025
Petitioner's Revision Request Denied in Swiss Custody Dispute
5A_915/2012
Appeal Dismissed in Parental Custody Revision Case Lacking Prospects of Success
5F_6/2014
Revision of Child Custody Decision Denied
5F_17/2014
Claimant's Revision Request Against Refusal of Legal Aid and Appeal Dismissal Dismissed

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
Art. 127 BGG

The Tribunal decided not to enter into the merits of the revision request without exchange of briefs, citing this procedural article.

Art. 64 Abs. 1 BGG

The request for pro bono legal aid (unentgeltliche Rechtspflege) was rejected based on this provision because the claim was deemed hopeless.

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

This provision concerning costs is implied by the decision not to charge court fees (Punkt 3) and not to award party compensation (Punkt 4), although it is not explicitly cited in those points.

Art. 93 BGG

This appears to be a mistake in the extraction rule as the dispositive itself does not cite Art. 93 BGG. However, reviewing the dispositive: Point 1 indicates non-admission, which is typically grounded in Art. 93 BGG or relevant admissibility articles, but Art. 93 BGG is not explicitly listed in points 1-4.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Sentenze successive che citano questa decisione (1)

1F_39/2016 (2016-12-08)
«…. Gegenstand Revisionsgesuch gegen die Urteile des Schweizerischen Bundesgerichts 1B_376/2016 vom 10. November 2016 und 1F_38/2016 vom 21. November 2016. Erwägungen: 1. Mit Urteil vom 10. November 2016 hat das Bundesgericht eine von A.________ erhobe…»

Testo completo

Bundesgericht

Tribunal fédéral

Tribunale federale

Tribunal federal

{T 0/2}

1F_38/2016

Urteil vom 23. November 2016

I. öffentlich-rechtliche Abteilung

Besetzung

Bundesrichter Fonjallaz, Präsident,

Bundesrichter Karlen, Eusebio,

Gerichtsschreiber Dold.

Verfahrensbeteiligte

A.________,

Gesuchsteller,

gegen

Generalstaatsanwaltschaft des Kantons Bern,

Maulbeerstrasse 10, Postfach 6250, 3001 Bern,

vertreten durch die Regionale Staatsanwaltschaft

Berner Jura-Seeland, Ländtestrasse 20,

Postfach 1180, 2501 Biel,

Obergericht des Kantons Bern, 2. Strafkammer,

Hochschulstrasse 17, Postfach 7475, 3001 Bern.

Gegenstand

Revisionsgesuch gegen das Urteil des Schweizerischen Bundesgerichts 1B_376/2016 vom 10. November 2016.

Erwägungen:

1. Mit Urteil vom 10. November 2016 hat das Bundesgericht eine von A.________ erhobene Beschwerde betreffend eine Haftentlassung abgewiesen, soweit es darauf eingetreten ist (Verfahren 1B_376/2016).

2. Mit Schreiben vom 14. November 2016 ersucht A.________ sinngemäss darum, das Urteil vom 10. November 2016 zu revidieren.

Die Revision eines bundesgerichtlichen Urteils ist aus den in Art. 121-123 BGG genannten Gründen zulässig. Der Gesuchsteller kritisiert das Urteil vom 10. November 2016 in verschiedener Hinsicht, beruft sich aber auf keinen der gesetzlich vorgesehenen Revisionsgründe.

3. Auf das Revisionsgesuch ist ohne Schriftenwechsel ( Art. 127 BGG ) nicht einzutreten.

Der Gesuchsteller beantragt die unentgeltliche Rechtspflege. Da sich sein Rechtsbegehren als aussichtslos erweist, ist der Antrag abzuweisen ( Art. 64 Abs. 1 BGG ). Angesichts der Umstände erscheint dennoch gerechtfertigt, auf die Erhebung von Gerichtskosten zu verzichten.

Demnach erkennt das Bundesgericht:

1. Auf das Revisionsgesuch wird nicht eingetreten.

2. Das Gesuch um unentgeltliche Rechtspflege wird abgewiesen.

3. Es werden keine Gerichtskosten erhoben.

4. Es wird keine Parteientschädigung zugesprochen.

5. Dieses Urteil wird dem Beschwerdeführer, der Generalstaatsanwaltschaft und dem Obergericht des Kantons Bern, 2. Strafkammer, sowie Urs Wüthrich schriftlich mitgeteilt.

Lausanne, 23. November 2016

Im Namen der I. öffentlich-rechtlichen Abteilung

des Schweizerischen Bundesgerichts

Der Präsident: Fonjallaz

Der Gerichtsschreiber: Dold