Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
30 02 19 • KG LU 30 02 19 Generato dall'IA

Denial of Free Legal Aid in Involuntary Commitment Upheld Due to Lack of Reasoned Decision

Numero d'incarto 30 02 19
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Canton Lucerna (CH-LU)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Archivio Entscheidsuche Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

In a case stemming from a request for release and the granting of free legal aid during involuntary psychiatric confinement, the higher court overturned the lower court's decision regarding the denial of free legal representation. The court reasoned that under constitutional and statutory provisions guaranteeing the right to be heard, an administrative body rejecting any request, including one for free legal aid, must briefly state the essential considerations underpinning its decision to ensure the affected party can reasonably appeal. The lower court failed this obligation by only superficially asserting the appellant did not require a representative or incur significant costs, thereby violating the appellant's right to a reasoned decision, which warranted the annulment of that specific part of the ruling.

Regesto Legislator

Ufficiale

§§ 110 Abs. 1 lit. c und 204 VRG; Art. 29 Abs. 2 BV. Die Behörde hat bei der Abweisung eines UR-Gesuchs wenigstens kurz die massgebenden Überlegungen zu nennen, auf die sich ihr Entscheid stützt. Genügt der Entscheid diesen Anforderungen an die Begründungspflicht nicht, ist das rechtliche Gehör des Betroffenen verletzt. Dies gilt auch im Fall eines Verfahrens der fürsorgerischen Freiheitsentziehung, das in der Hauptsache vorzeitig als erledigt abgeschrieben wird. | Verwaltungsverfahrensrecht

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
gratuito patrocinio ricovero psichiatrico forzato diritto di essere sentito decisione motivata rappresentanza legale diritto legale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art. 29 Abs. 2 BV
The court based the annulment of the decision regarding the refusal of legal aid on the violation of the right to be heard, guaranteed by this constitutional provision.
Art. 52 VRPG
Art. 107 VRPG
§ 110 Abs. 1 lit. c VRG
The court implicitly based its decision on the violation of the duty to provide reasons, which is regulated by this provision, by annulling the lower court's decision concerning the costs.
Generato dall'IA
30 02 6
Appeal Regarding Involuntary Commitment Without Independent Expert Opinion After Condition Improvement
30 05 12
Psychiatric Commitment Appeal: Cost Award Based on Lack of Notice of Decision
1C 12 39
Denial of Free Legal Aid Appeal and Procedural Hearing Requirements
RRE Nr 3010
Failure to Justify Financial Need in Legal Aid Application

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 110 Abs. 1 lit. c VRG

The court implicitly based its decision on the violation of the duty to provide reasons, which is regulated by this provision, by annulling the lower court's decision concerning the costs.

Art. 29 Abs. 2 BV

The court based the annulment of the decision regarding the refusal of legal aid on the violation of the right to be heard, guaranteed by this constitutional provision.

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 →

Testo completo

Rechtsprechung Luzern

Instanz: · Obergericht

Abteilung: · II. Kammer

Rechtsgebiet: · Verwaltungsverfahrensrecht

Entscheiddatum: · 25.10.2002

Fallnummer: · 30 02 19

LGVE: · 2002 I Nr. 43

Leitsatz: · §§ 110 Abs. 1 lit. c und 204 VRG; Art. 29 Abs. 2 BV. Die Behörde hat bei der Abweisung eines UR-Gesuchs wenigstens kurz die massgebenden Überlegungen zu nennen, auf die sich ihr Entscheid stützt. Genügt der Entscheid diesen Anforderungen an die Begründungspflicht nicht, ist das rechtliche Gehör des Betroffenen verletzt. Dies gilt auch im Fall eines Verfahrens der fürsorgerischen Freiheitsentziehung, das in der Hauptsache vorzeitig als erledigt abgeschrieben wird.

Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.