Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
II 2024 11 • VG SZ II 2024 11 AI generated

Construction Company Benefit Levy Challenge

Case Number II 2024 11
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Switzerland · Canton of Schwyz (CH-SZ)
Decision Date
Open official source Entscheidsuche mirror Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

A construction company challenged a decision imposing a benefit levy (Vorteilsabgabe) related to public infrastructure work, arguing that the applicable statute required an actual advantage to have accrued, which they contested. The court reasoned that the levy is based on the legal possibility of benefiting from the infrastructure improvement, rather than the actual realization of a specific economic advantage, and thus upheld the imposition of the benefit levy against the appellant.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Construction Company Benefit Levy Challenge: The court reasoned that the levy is based on the legal possibility of benefiting from the infrastructure improvement, rather than the actual realization of a specific economic advantage, and thus upheld the imposition of the benefit levy against the appellant.

Keywords

AI generated
construction companies public works economic infrastructure betterment levy special advantage production levy public-law benefit Kausalabgaben (Vorteilsabgabe nach § 58 Strassengesetz) | Kausalabgaben
AI generated
II 2019 96
Company v. Civil Engineering Office Regarding Benefit Levy for Reconstruction
II 2017 42
Company v. Local Council: Benefit Levy Appeal
III 2024 72
Development Levy Challenge and Procedural Defenses
III 2018 217
Infrastructure Installation on Collective Property Rights Dispute
III 2019 54
Property Owner v. Municipality on Road Improvement Levy Proportionality

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n II 2024 11 |\n |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 28. August 2024 |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n Dr.iur. Vital Zehnder, Vizepräsident |\n \n|\n |\n Dr.oec. Andreas Risi, Richter Dr.iur. Frank Lampert, Richter |\n \n|\n |\n Dr.iur. Thomas Twerenbold, Gerichtsschreiber |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Parteien |\n A.________ GmbH, \n Beschwerdeführerin, |\n \n|\n |\n gegen |\n \n|\n |\n Tiefbauamt, Postfach 1251, 6431 Schwyz, \n Vorinstanz, |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | \n Gegenstand · \n Kausalabgaben (Vorteilsabgabe nach