Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
CCP.2010.11 • TC NE CCP.2010.11 Generato dall'IA

Rejection of Deadline Extension and Reinstatement Motion

Numero d'incarto CCP.2010.11
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Canton Neuchâtel (CH-NE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Spese processuali senza spese
Apri la fonte ufficiale Archivio Entscheidsuche Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

A request seeking an extension of the ten-day statutory deadline under Article 247 para. 2 of the relevant procedural code was rejected because a judge lacks the authority to extend legal deadlines. Interpreting the request as a motion for reinstatement of time under Article 86, the court found that the stated grounds, specifically workload-related issues leading to a nearly month-long delay, did not constitute circumstances beyond the applicant's control, thus failing to meet the required conditions for reinstatement.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 247 al.2, Art. 86 CPPN, Art. 247 al.2 CPPN; Rejection of Deadline Extension and Reinstatement Motion: 2 of the relevant procedural code was rejected because a judge lacks the authority to extend legal deadlines. Interpreting the request as a motion for reinstatement of time under Article 86, the court found that the stated grounds, specifically workload-related issues leading to a nearly month-long delay, did not constitute circumstances beyond the applicant's control, thus failing to meet the required conditions for reinstatement.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
termine processuale perentorio presupposti legali proroga tardiva del termine termini di ricorso termine di revisione preclusione per tardività Observation sur un pourvoi. Requête sur prolongation du délai.

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art. 247 al.2
que les délais légaux ne peuvent pas être prorogés par le juge et que le délai de l'article 247 al.2 CPPN, d'une durée de 10 jours, est un délai légal,
Art. 86 CPPN
The court mentions this article in the reasoning in relation to the rejection of the request as a request for restitution of the time limit, although it is not explicitly cited in the operative part that orders the rejection.
Art. 247 al.2 CPPN
The court notes that the mandatory time limit of this article could not be extended, justifying the rejection of the request for prolongation.
Generato dall'IA
CACIV.2012.7
Litigant Denied Extension of Statutory Appeal Deadline Due to Inadmissibility and Fault
CDP.2018.273
Appeal Regarding Denial of Deadline Reinstatement for Untimely Opposition to Undue Benefit Repayment Demand
CPEN.2020.94
Appellant's Motion for Extension of Appeal Deadline Denied Due to Lack of Demonstrated Fault While in Detention
TA.2007.157
Appeal Inadmissibility Due to Insufficient Justification for Missed Deadline
CCC.1996.7153
Appeal Reinstatement Denied Due to Untimely Filing and Party Negligence

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
Art. 86 CPPN

The court mentions this article in the reasoning in relation to the rejection of the request as a request for restitution of the time limit, although it is not explicitly cited in the operative part that orders the rejection.

Art. 247 al.2 CPPN

The court notes that the mandatory time limit of this article could not be extended, justifying the rejection of the request for prolongation.

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

Réf. : CCP.2010.11/ctr

C O N S I D E R A N T

que les délais légaux ne peuvent pas être prorogés par le juge et que le délai de l'article 247 al.2 CPPN, d'une durée de 10 jours, est un délai légal,

que le président de la Cour n'a ainsi pas la compétence de donner suite à la requête, que, tout au plus, il aurait été envisageable de faire droit, en quelque sorte par anticipation, à une requête de restitution de délai, au sens de l'article 86 CPPN, si le requérant invoquait être empêché ”*par des circonstances indépendantes de sa volonté*”, qu'en interprétant la requête comme une demande de restitution de délai, celle-ci devrait alors être rejetée, les conditions posées par l'article 86 CPPN n'étant pas remplies (Bauer/Cornu, CPPN annoté, N. 1 ad art. 86), que tel n'est pas le cas en effet de la surcharge de travail, surtout si elle doit conduire à un report de délai de près d'un mois entier,

Par ces motifs*,

1. Rejette la requête de prolongation.

2. Statue sans frais.

Neuchâtel, le 17 février 2010

Le président de la Cour de cassation pénale