Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
210.100 EGZZGBLICC CH-GR

Art. 61 Legge d'introduzione al Codice civile svizzero (LICC) - VI. Disposizioni comuni 1. Obblighi di avviso cantonali

Parte speciale - Del diritto di famiglia - Protezione dei minori e degli adulti
Apri la fonte ufficiale Atto completo (177 Articoli) Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Art. 61 LICC · VI. Disposizioni comuni 1. Obblighi di avviso cantonali

1. Gli specialisti dei settori medicina, cure, formazione, educazione, assistenza, consulenza sociale e religione che nell'esercizio della loro professione vengono a conoscenza di un'acuta minaccia per gli altri o per sé stesso di un minore o di una persona adulta, sono obbligate a dare avviso di tale minaccia.

2. Chi è in possesso di direttive del paziente deve comunicarle al medico curante, qualora venga a conoscenza dell'incapacità di discernimento della persona che le ha impartite.

← Art. 60 LICC Legge d'introduzione al Codice civile svizzero (LICC) - Designazioni Art. 62 LICC →

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 (12)

ZK1 2016 145 · gr (Art. 443 Abs. 2 ZGB i.V.m. Art. 61 Abs. 1 EGzZGB)
Patient Appeal Overturns Compulsory Placement Despite Psychosis Diagnosis
Cited in the dispositive (Order 3) to justify sending the decision to the KESB as a danger notification.
ZK1 2016 145 · gr (Art. 443 Abs. 2 ZGB i.V.m. Art. 61 Abs. 1 EGzZGB)
Patient Appeal Overturns Compulsory Placement Despite Psychosis Diagnosis
Used as the basis for sending the decision to the KESB as a notification of danger to initiate clarification and examination of further measures.
ZK1 2010 35 · gr (Art. 61 Abs. 4 EGzZGB)
Guardianship Authority Appeal on Cost Allocation Following Tutelage Reversal
Cited in the reasoning to support the analysis regarding the immediate effect of the original custody decision, which is relevant to the procedural history leading to the appeal.
ZK1 2009 53 · gr (Art. 61 EGzZGB)
Supervisory Authority Appeal Regarding Mootness and Cost Allocation
Cited in connection with Art. 420 ZGB, governing the formal appeal against decisions of the Vormundschaftsbehörde, which has different cost implications than a simple supervisory notification.
ZF 2005 49 · gr (Art. 61 Abs. 1 EGzZGB)
Appeal Against Dismissal for Late Filing of Protective Measure Complaint
Cited in the reasoning as the provision setting the ten-day appeal deadline.
ZF 2005 49 · gr (Art. 61 Abs. 4 EGzZGB)
Appeal Against Dismissal for Late Filing of Protective Measure Complaint
Cited in the reasoning, relating to the effect granted to the appeal, which supports the view that recess rules should apply.
ZF 2005 49 · gr (Art. 61 Abs. 1 EGzZGB)
Curatorship Appeal Timeliness During Judicial Recess
Cited in the reasoning to determine the length of the appeal deadline.
ZF 2005 49 · gr (Art. 61 Abs. 4 EGzZGB)
Curatorship Appeal Timeliness During Judicial Recess
Cited in the reasoning regarding the court's power to grant suspensive effect, relating to the overall context of the decision.
ZF 2005 35 · gr (Art. 61 ff. EGzZGB)
Case Concerning Appointment of Advisory Board Due to Contested Mismanagement and Conflicting Psychiatric Evaluations
These procedural rules for appeal proceedings before the District Court Committee are mentioned as context for cost allocation, but not directly applied in the final orders.
ZF 2002 75 · gr (Art. 61 EGzZGB)
Appeal Overturning Educational Supervision Measure Due to Improved Child Stability
Cited to describe the initial complaint against the Guardianship Authority's decision.
PKG 1995 4 · gr (Art. 61 Abs. 1 EGzZGB)
Cantonal Guardianship Supervisory Authority Dispute
Cited in conjunction with Art. 420 Abs. 2 ZGB regarding the first supervisory authority acting as an appeal instance.
PKG 2002 4 · gr (Art. 61 EGzZGB)
Co-Heirs' Lack of Standing to Appeal Guardianship Inventory
Cited by the appellants regarding the nature of the appeal mechanism, although the court ultimately ruled on inadmissibility based on lack of legal interest.