Territorial jurisdiction for the prohibition of the ward after creating a new domicile

Facts

The case concerns an individual, H., who was placed under guardianship in 1995. The guardianship was transformed into a protective measure under art. 393 ch. 2 CC. H. then moved from P. to L. and then to R. with his partner. The communal council of P., which had instituted the guardianship, decided to request an expert to assess whether H. should be prohibited. Based on the expertise, the communal council decided to institute a guardianship under art. 369 CC. H. contested this decision before the cantonal court, which rejected his appeal. H. then appealed to the Federal Court.

The parties involved are H., the communal council of P., the government of the canton of Lucerne, and the cantonal court. The key dates are October 28, 1997, the date on which the communal council of P. requested the expertise, and December 3, 1999, the date on which the communal council instituted the guardianship.

Considerations

The Federal Court examined the question of territorial jurisdiction for the prohibition of the ward after creating a new domicile. It considered that art. 376 al. 1 CC provides that the guardianship must be instituted at the domicile of the person to be protected. The Federal Court also examined art. 377 al. 2 CC, which provides that the guardianship must be transferred to the authority of the new domicile if the person to be protected changes domicile.

The Federal Court considered that the communal council of P. was not competent to institute the guardianship, as H. had changed domicile and the guardianship had not been transferred to…