Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
III 2022 92 • VG SZ III 2022 92 KI-generiert

Lack of Standing in Consolidated Appeals Against Municipal Council Decisions

Geschäftsnummer III 2022 92
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Schweiz · Kanton Schwyz (CH-SZ)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Gutgeheissen (Allowed)
Kostenauflage zulasten Vorinstanz / Staat
Originalquelle öffnen Entscheidsuche-Spiegel Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

Two parties separately challenged decisions concerning the same matter, which involved a municipal council's actions. The first appeal contested the municipal council's decision, while the second appeal contested a separate decision from the same municipal council. The court determined that both appeals were inadmissible because the respective appellants lacked standing, as they were not directly affected by the challenged administrative acts in a manner that would grant them a legally protected interest sufficient to bring the action.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Lack of Standing in Consolidated Appeals Against Municipal Council Decisions: The first appeal contested the municipal council's decision, while the second appeal contested a separate decision from the same municipal council. The court determined that both appeals were inadmissible because the respective appellants lacked standing, as they were not directly affected by the challenged administrative acts in a manner that would grant them a legally protected interest sufficient to bring the action.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Beschwerdelegitimation Legitimation der Gemeinde Rechtsschutzinteresse Untätigkeitsklage Verwaltungsakte Ungültigkeit einer Wahl
KI-generiert
III 2024 44
Appeal Against Municipal Council Administrative Decision
III 2017 233
Municipal Planning Appeal Standing Challenge
III 2019 113
Appeal Against Municipal Council Decision
II 2023 56
Municipality's Lack of Legal Standing to Appeal Health Insurance Apportionment
III 2022 66
Municipal Council Building Regulation Enforcement Appeal Inadmissibility

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n III 2022 92 |\n |\n \n\n

\n III 2022 98 \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 13. Januar 2023 |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n lic.iur. Achilles Humbel, Präsident |\n \n|\n |\n lic.iur. Karl Gasser, Richter Irene Thalmann, Richterin |\n \n|\n |\n MLaw Manuel Gamma, Gerichtsschreiber |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | |

|\n Parteien |\n \n \n1. Gemeinderat Morschach, Schulstrasse 6, 6443 Morschach, (Verfahren III 2022 92) \n2. Flurgenossenschaft A.________, \n (Verfahren III 2022 98) \n Beschwerdeführer, |\n

\n|\n |\n gegen |\n

\n|\n |\n \n \n1. Gemeinderat Morschach, Schulstrasse 6, 6443 Morschach, \n2. Amt für Raumentwicklung ARE, Bahnhofstrasse 14, \n Postfach 1186, 6431 Schwyz, \n3. Regierungsrat des Kantons Schwyz, Bahnhofstrasse 9, \n Postfach 1260, 6431 Schwyz, \n Vorinstanzen (beide Verfahren), \n4. C.________, \n Beschwerdegegner (beide Verfahren), \n5. Flurgenossenschaft A.________, c/o D.________, \n Verfahrensbeteiligte (im Verfahren III 2022 92), \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt Dr.iur. B.________, \n6. E.________, \n7. F.________, \n8. G.________, \n9. H.________, \n10. I.________, \n11. J.________, \n12. K.________, \n Beigeladene (im Verfahren III 2022 92), |\n

\n\n

\n