Facts
The dispute concerns the transfer of the guardianship of a ward, St., from the municipality of Littau to the city of Lucerne. While St. was initially under guardianship in Kriens, the guardianship was later transferred to Littau following the family's relocation. During the time St. was placed in an alcoholic rehabilitation facility in 1956/57, his wife found housing in Lucerne, where the family settled after St.'s conditional release.
Nearly a year later, the guardianship authority of Littau requested that the Lucerne authority take over the guardianship. Although this request was rejected at first instance, the Lucerne cantonal government ultimately upheld the appeal of the Lucerne guardianship authority, finding that the Lucerne guardianship authority was not obliged to take over St.'s guardianship.
It is against this decision of the cantonal government that the Littau guardianship authority and the guardian have filed a nullity appeal with the Federal Tribunal, requesting the annulment of the decision and the obligation for the Lucerne guardianship authority to take over St.'s guardianship.
Considerations
Contrary to the appellants' opinion, Art. 377 CC does not contain a rule on territorial jurisdiction, neither according to its wording nor according to the interpretation given to it. This article addresses the change of domicile of the ward and provides that the transfer of guardianship to the authority of the new domicile is done by agreement between the two guardianship authorities.
A dispute over the transfer of guardianship and the change of domicile, which does not call into question the very existence of the guardianship, cannot be the subject of an appeal for reform or a nullity appeal to the Federal Tribunal. The appeal for reform is…