{"Signatur": "CH_BGE_005", "Spider": "CH_BGE", "Sprache": "fr", "Datum": "1956-01-01", "HTML": {"Datei": "CH_BGE/CH_BGE_005_BGE-82-III-35_1956.html", "URL": "https://search.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/clir/http/index.php?lang=de&type=highlight_simple_query&page=18&from_date=&to_date=&from_year=1956&to_year=1956&sort=relevance&insertion_date=&from_date_push=&top_subcollection_clir=bge&query_words=&part=all&de_fr=&de_it=&fr_de=&fr_it=&it_de=&it_fr=&orig=&translation=&rank=177&highlight_docid=atf%3A%2F%2F82-III-35%3Ade&number_of_ranks=207&azaclir=clir", "Checksum": "a1048003435abb34fe16508f85143f4b"}, "Scrapedate": "2025-05-16", "Num": ["BGE 82 III 35"], "Kopfzeile": [{"Sprachen": ["de"], "Text": "Bundesgericht (BGE) Band III 1956 BGE 82 III 35"}, {"Sprachen": ["fr"], "Text": "Tribunal f\u00e9d\u00e9ral (ATF) Volume III 1956 BGE 82 III 35"}, {"Sprachen": ["it"], "Text": "Tribunale federale (DTF) Volume III 1956 BGE 82 III 35"}], "Meta": [{"Sprachen": ["de"], "Text": "Eidgenossenschaft Bundesgericht (BGE) Band III"}, {"Sprachen": ["fr"], "Text": "Conf\u00e9deration Tribunal f\u00e9d\u00e9ral (ATF) Volume III"}, {"Sprachen": ["it"], "Text": "Confederazione Tribunale federale (DTF) Volume III"}], "Abstract": [{"Sprachen": ["de"], "Text": "Regeste\n<br>Art. 125 Abs. 3 SchKG enth\u00e4lt keine blosse Ordnungsvorschrift; die Nichtbeachtung rechtfertigt die Aufhebung der Steigerung. Wer durch die Missachtung des Art. 125 Abs. 3 SchKG betroffen ist, kann die Steigerung selbst innerhalb der Frist des Art. 17 SchKG durch Beschwerde anfechten."}, {"Sprachen": ["fr"], "Text": "Regeste\n<br>La r\u00e8gle de l'art. 125 al. 3 LP n'est pas une simple prescription d'ordre; son inobservation justifie l'annulation des ench\u00e8res. L'int\u00e9ress\u00e9 qui entend se plaindre de l'inobservation de l'art. 125 al. 3 LP est recevable \u00e0 porter plainte contre les ench\u00e8res ellesm\u00eames dans le d\u00e9lai de l'art. 17 LP."}, {"Sprachen": ["it"], "Text": "Regesto\n<br>La norma dell'art. 125 cp. 3 LEF non \u00e8 una semplice prescrizione d'ordine; la sua inosservanza giustifica l'annullamento dell'incanto. L'interessato che \u00e8 leso dall'inosservanza dell'art. 125 cp. 3 LEF pu\u00f2 impugnare l'incanto mediante reclamo nel termine dell'art. 17 LEF."}], "ScrapyJob": "446973/47/2450", "Zeit UTC": "16.05.2025 15:01:50", "Checksum": "63cd0e911e94fd8b37d88a7c8e1a72a7"}