Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
210 ZGBCC CH

Art. 254 Codice civile svizzero (CC)

CC; Parte seconda: Della parentela; Titolo settimo: Del sorgere della filiazione ; Capo primo: Disposizioni generali ; b. ...
Apri la fonte ufficiale Atto completo (1,277 Articoli) Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Art. 254 CC

← Art. 253 CC Codice civile svizzero (CC) Art. 255 CC →

Ti chiedi come si applica questa disposizione alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa norma insieme alla giurisprudenza, ai commentari e alle disposizioni correlate in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (6)

10/2002/13 · sh (Art. 254 Ziff. 1 ZGB)
Paternity Presumption Waiver and Cost Deposit Requirement
The court considered the scope of the official investigation principle in relation to the party's ability to waive evidence to rebut paternity.
10/2000/5 · sh (Art. 254 Ziff. 2 ZGB)
Paternity Challenge: Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, and Inference from Refusal to Provide DNA Evidence
Cited as the directly applicable federal procedural provision establishing the mother's obligation to cooperate with evidence collection.
AA060038 · zh (Art. 254 Ziff. 2 ZGB)
Appeal Dismissed Due to Mootness of Blood Test Order
Mentioned in the reasoning regarding the proportionality of the blood sampling, but not cited in the final operative orders.
11.1999.118 · ti (art. 254 n. 1 CC)
Paternity Contest Dismissal Cost Award Reversal Based on Just Motives
Cited in the reasoning regarding the principle of inquiry that governs paternity law, although its application is procedural/substantive context for the decision on costs.
11.1996.124 · ti (art. 254 n. 2 CC)
Paternity Suit After Foreign Judgment and Refusal of Serological Testing
Cited in the reasoning regarding the obligation of parties to cooperate with necessary examinations, concerning the appellant's refusal of the DNA test.
AA060038 · zh (Art. 254 Ziff. 2 ZGB)
Mootness in Legal Assistance Appeal: Cost Allocation Based on Likely Merits
Cited in the reasoning (§ III.1.4.1, 1.4.2) regarding the substantive issue of proportionality concerning the blood sample, which the court deemed inadmissible to review because it was only raised in the appeal.