Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
TA.2004.277 • TC NE TA.2004.277 Generato dall'IA

Appeal Inadmissible Due to Improper Jurisdiction: Appellant's Change of Domicile

Numero d'incarto TA.2004.277
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Canton Neuchâtel (CH-NE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)
Spese processuali senza spese
Apri la fonte ufficiale Archivio Entscheidsuche Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The administrative court declined jurisdiction and declared a submitted appeal inadmissible because, under the relevant law, jurisdiction for insurance matters rests with the court in the canton of the insured person's domicile at the time the appeal is filed, and the appellant had established a new domicile in the canton of Valais by the filing date of November 3, 2004, even though the appeal was initially filed with the court of Neuchâtel; consequently, the court transmitted the case ex officio to the Insurance Court of the canton of Valais without imposing costs.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 58 al.1 LPGA, Art. 86 al.3 aLAMal, Art. 64 LTF; Appeal Inadmissible Due to Improper Jurisdiction: Appellant's Change of Domicile: The administrative court declined jurisdiction and declared a submitted appeal inadmissible because, under the relevant law, jurisdiction for insurance matters rests with the court in the canton of the insured person's domicile at the time the appeal is filed, and the appellant had established a new domicile in the canton of Valais by the filing date of November 3, 2004, even though the appeal was initially filed with the court of Neuchâtel; consequently, the court transmitted the case ex officio to the Insurance Court of the canton of Valais without imposing costs.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
cambiamento di domicilio declinatoria di competenza spese amministrative data di inoltro legittimazione a ricorrere ricorso per annullamento nel diritto dell'Unione Compétence à raison du lieu du TA.

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art. 58 al.1 LPGA
The court used this provision in its reasoning leading to the decision on jurisdiction, though it did not explicitly cite it in the final orders as the ground for ruling on inadmissibility or competence decline.
Art. 86 al.3 aLAMal
This provision was mentioned in the reasoning to contrast the previous law with the current applicable law.
Art. 64 LTF
This provision is implied by the decision not to charge court fees, relating to the handling of costs.
Generato dall'IA
CACIV.2020.50
Appeal Against Relocation Authorization Admissibility Ruling
CC.2005.165
Domicile in Divorce Jurisdiction
TA.2009.462
Residence Permit Transfer Recusal Challenge Dismissed
CDP.2019.46
Jurisdictional Transfer Due to Improper Appeal Following Annulment and Reopening of Administrative Procedure
CMPEA.2012.60
Curatorship Jurisdiction Transfer Appeal Regarding Treatment Residence Domicile

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
Art. 58 al.1 LPGA

The court used this provision in its reasoning leading to the decision on jurisdiction, though it did not explicitly cite it in the final orders as the ground for ruling on inadmissibility or competence decline.

Art. 86 al.3 aLAMal

This provision was mentioned in the reasoning to contrast the previous law with the current applicable law.

Art. 64 LTF

This provision is implied by the decision not to charge court fees, relating to the handling of costs.

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. : TA.2004.277-AMAL

C O N S I D E R A N T

que, en vertu de l'article 58 al.1 LPGA, le tribunal des assurances compétent est celui du canton de domicile de l’assuré ou d’une autre partie au moment du dépôt du recours,

que, par autre partie, il faut entendre le tiers ayant déposé recours (ATFA non publié du 05.12.2003 rendu en la cause H. [K 69/03]),

que, contrairement à la teneur de l'article 86 al.3 aLAMal, depuis l'entrée en vigueur de la LPGA, il n'y a plus de fors alternatifs à choix au domicile de l'assuré ou au siège de l'assureur, seul le premier subsistant (Kieser, ATSG-Kommentar, no 3, ad art.58), que L. s'est constitué un nouveau domicile dans le canton du Valais depuis le 31 août 2004, que, lorsqu'il a déposé son recours en date du 3 novembre 2004, il n'était ainsi plus domicilié dans le canton de Neuchâtel,

qu'il s'ensuit que la Cour de céans doit décliner sa compétence, à raison du lieu, et transmettre d'office la cause au Tribunal cantonal des assurances du canton du Valais,

que, partant, le recours doit être déclaré irrecevable, sans frais,

Par ces motifs*, LE TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIF

1. Décline sa compétence.

2. Déclare le recours irrecevable.

3. Transmet la cause au Tribunal des assurances du canton du Valais.

4. Dit qu'il n'est pas perçu de frais de justice.

Neuchâtel, le 29 mars 2005