161.1 GSOGLOJM

CH-BE

Art. 56 Law on the Organization of Judicial Authorities and the Public Prosecutor’s Office (GSOG) - Judicial Body

**Supreme Courts - Administrative Court**

Open official source Full Act (107 Articles) Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Art. 56 Law on the Organization of Judicial Authorities and the Public Prosecutor’s Office (GSOG) - Judicial Body · Judicial Body

1. The panels usually deliberate in a composition of three members.

2. They deliberate in a composition of five members

a) on disputes of fundamental importance,

b) in cases of jurisdictional conflicts,

c) regarding requests for the dismissal of full-time government officials.

3. They adjudicate clearly well-founded or clearly unfounded cases with two members.

4. The arbitration tribunal in social insurance disputes deliberates in a composition of three members. It consists of a member from a department as a neutral chairperson and one representative each from the affected insurers and service providers. These are designated by the neutral chairperson.

5. The panels deliberate unanimously by circulation procedure. In disputes that are neither of fundamental importance nor of significant impact, they can also make majority decisions by circulation procedure. In other cases, they conduct a judgment consultation.

6. Any member of the panel may request the conduct of a judgment consultation.

← Art. 55 Law on the Organization of Judicial Authorities and the Public Prosecutor's Office (GSOG) - Division President Subject Matter Art. 57 Law on the Organization of Judicial Authorities and the Public Prosecutor's Office (LOJAPP) →

Court Decisions Applying This Provision (515)

100 2022 347 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 2 Bst. a GSOG)

Building Permit Denial Due to Mandatory Zone Boundary Clearance Violation

Cited to justify the decision being made by a five-member panel due to the fundamental nature of the legal question.

100 2022 35 · be (Art. 57 Abs. 6 i.V.m. Art. 56 Abs. 1 GSOG)

Property Owners v. Municipality Regarding Water and Sewage Flat-Rate Fees and Procedural Defects

Cited in the reasoning (E. 1.2) justifying the decision for the three-person panel to hear the case.

100 2020 461 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 2 Bst. a GSOG)

Cantonal Financial Control Report Access Denial Upheld

Cited to establish the legal basis for the court ruling in a five-member panel due to the fundamental importance of the dispute.

100 2019 385 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 2 Bst. a GSOG)

Student Grant Calculation Disclosure and Stepfather Income Inclusion Appeal

Cited in the reasoning (E. 1.2) regarding the composition of the court (five judges), but not explicitly cited in the final orders (1-5).

100 2020 299 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 2 Bst. a GSOG)

Bern-Mittelland Prefectural Office Decision Annulled Due to Invalid Signatory Authority

Cited to justify the decision being made by a five-member panel due to the fundamental nature of the issue concerning the authority to decide.

100 2019 115 · be (Art. 57 Abs. 6 i.V.m. Art. 56 Abs. 1 GSOG)

Bernese Real Estate Tax Exemption Dispute Regarding Main Residence Requirements and Deferral Periods

Cited in the reasoning (E. 1.4) for deciding the case with a panel of three judges based on the specific legal circumstances.

100 2019 136 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 2 Bst. a GSOG)

Municipality v. Sub-Prefecture (Earned Income Allowance and Subsidized Employment)

Cited for the decision to judge the case in a panel of five because it concerns a matter of fundamental importance.

100 2019 281 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 2 Bst. b GSOG)

Jurisdiction over Termination of Public-School Apprenticeship Contract

This procedural rule mandates that the Administrative Court decides on conflicts of jurisdiction while sitting in a panel of five judges.

200 2019 78 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 1 GSOG)

Employee Insolvency Compensation Claim Barred by Statute of Limitations Following Provisional Composition Moratorium

Cited in the reasoning regarding the composition of the court but not explicitly in the dispositive orders.

100 2015 223 · be (Art. 57 Abs. 6 i.V.m. Art. 56 Abs. 2 Bst. a GSOG)

Admissibility of Appeal Against Interlocutory Cost Decision in Land Acquisition Permit Case

Cited in the reasoning (E. 2.9) justifying the five-judge panel consideration. Not in the dispositive.

200 2015 524 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 1 GSOG)

Claimant v. IV Office (Pension Retroactivity for Mentally Incapacitated)

Cited regarding the standard chamber composition.

200 2015 524 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 1 GSOG)

Claimant v. IV Office (Pension Retroactivity for Mentally Incapacitated)

Cited regarding the usual composition of the chambers (three judges).

200 2015 524 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 2 lit. a GSOG)

Claimant v. IV Office (Pension Retroactivity for Mentally Incapacitated)

Cited regarding the five-judge composition for fundamental questions.

200 2015 524 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 2 lit. a GSOG)

Claimant v. IV Office (Pension Retroactivity for Mentally Incapacitated)

Cited to establish the basis for the court hearing in five-judge session due to the fundamental legal question.

200 2016 234 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 1 GSOG)

EU Citizen Employed Abroad by Swiss Confederation Entitled to Mandatory Swiss Social Security Coverage

Cited in the reasoning regarding the composition of the judging panel.