Legislator Case Law & Legislation
741.21 SSVOSROSSTR CH

Art. 101 Ordinance of September 5, 1979, on Road Signage (OSR) - Principles

OSR; Chapitre 14 Exigences générales en matière de signalisation routière
Open official source Full Act (136 Articles) Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Art. 101 OSR · Principles

Signals and markings not provided for in the present ordinance are not permitted; exceptions are reserved for Articles 54, paragraph 9, and 115.

Signals and markings can only be installed or removed if ordered by the authority or the Federal Roads Office (OFROU); the procedure outlined in Article 107 must be followed.

Signals and markings must not be ordered or placed unnecessarily, nor should they be absent where they are essential. They should be arranged uniformly, especially on the same thoroughfare.

...

Signals apply to the entire roadway unless it is clearly indicated that they are intended only for certain lanes or special traffic areas, either by being placed above the roadway or due to specific arrangements (e.g., Article 59).

Signals should not follow each other at short distances.

Two signals may be installed on the same support; exceptionally and in compelling cases, this number can be increased to three; this principle does not apply to direction indicators. As a general rule, they should be placed from top to bottom: danger signals, regulatory or priority signals, information signals.

Signals may appear on a white rectangular panel: a. when placed above the roadway or above certain lanes; b. within localities when additional information is necessary; c. outside localities on less significant secondary roads (Article 22, paragraph 4) when additional information is necessary; d. on systems with variable signals. The additional information (e.g., an inscription, an arrow, a symbol) is black and appears on the white rectangular panel below the represented signal.

Signals in a luminous version may appear on black rectangular panels.

Yellow and black signals, with the exception of the "Main Road" (3.03) and "End of Main Road" (3.04) signals, are intended solely for military vehicle drivers. The signals have a yellow background; the border, inscription, and symbol are black. The provisions related to the protection of signals (Article 98 LCR) are applicable.

White and orange direction indicators show the direction to follow to reach educational centers, emergency medical posts, as well as relatively large public civil protection shelters that are difficult to identify without a direction indicator. The direction indicators have a white background; the border is orange and the inscription is black; the international emblem of civil protection may appear in an additional field at their base. The provisions related to the protection of signals (Article 98 LCR) are applicable.

← Art. 100 OSR Ordinance of September 5, 1979, on Road Signage (OSR) - Contents, Abbreviations, and Definitions Art. 102 OSR →

Need to analyze how this provision applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this statute against case law, commentaries, and related legislative provisions inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Court Decisions Applying This Provision (41)

VWBES.2024.236 · so (Art. 101 Abs. 3 SSV)
Property Owner v. Local Council Regarding Traffic Measures and Access Restriction
Cited in the reasoning (E. 5.2) regarding the principle against unnecessary road signs/markings, informing the decision on the interim measure.
VB.2022.00505 · zh (Art. 101 SSV)
Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Standing Against Speed Limit Reduction Order
This provision is listed under the 'Rechtsnormen' section and is part of the background legal framework mentioned in the context of the decision, although its direct application in the dispositive is not explicit based solely on the provided summary of orders.
P/21239/2021 · ge (art. 101 al. 3 OSR)
Appeal Against Decision to Drop Negligent Bodily Harm Complaint Following Cycling Accident
This article from the Road Traffic Signs Ordinance was referenced in the analysis concerning the necessity of signage.
B.2018.80.B.2018.82 · sg (Art. 101 Abs. 2 SSV)
Municipal Plan Speed Limit Zone Coordination Failure
Cited regarding the procedure for marking traffic lanes, relevant to the parking markings which were central to the coordination issue.
Begegnungszone.Temp · ag (Art. 101 Abs. 3, 4 und 5 SSV)
Municipality's Right to Establish 20 km/h "Begegnungszone" Upheld
These provisions were cited to justify the avoidance of unnecessary signage and markings.
EBVU.17.191 · ag (Art. 101 Abs. 3, 4 und 5 SSV)
Shared Space Zone Upheld with 20 km/h Speed Limit
These provisions state that unnecessary signs and markings should not be used.
GE.2015.0182 · vd (art. 101 al. 3 OSR)
Property Owner v. Municipality Regarding Pedestrian Zone Delivery Hours
Cited regarding the principle that signs should not be ordered or placed without necessity.
GE.2016.0127 · vd (art. 101 al. 3 OSR)
Property Owner Appeal of Road Signage Approval Denied Based on Public Safety Justification
Cited in the reasoning section regarding the necessity and placement of traffic signs.
GE.2012.0137 · vd (Art. 101 al. 3 OSR)
Property Owners v. Road Service (Parking Ban Annulment)
The court uses this provision to evaluate the proportionality of the traffic signal (prohibition of parking), stating that signals should not be ordered unnecessarily.
52.2012.222 · ti (art. 101 cpv. 3 OSStr)
Municipal Road Weight Restrictions and Authorization for Exceptions
Cited in the reasoning section (order 3.1) as a general principle that signs must not be prescribed without necessity.
GE.2012.0011 · vd (art. 101 al. 3 de l'ordonnance sur lasignalisation routière du 5 septembre 1979 (OSR; RS 741.21))
Municipality v. Department: Truck Ban Appeal and Traffic Redirection Impact
Cited in the context of proportionality, supporting the finding that the measure was disproportionate and leading to the annulment in II.
GE.2010.0012 · vd (Art. 101 al. 3 OSR)
Farmers, Instructors, and Garage Owner v. Municipality Regarding Bombazine Sector Traffic Restrictions
Cited regarding the principle that signals and markings should not be ordered unnecessarily, which is relevant to the proportionality assessment.
U 2011 74 · gr (Art. 101 cpv. 2 OSStr)
Administrative Dispute Regarding Traffic Sign Installation at Road Intersection
Cited in the reasoning regarding the legal basis for traffic signs and adherence to procedure (though not directly in the operative part, it frames the context reviewed under Art. 106/107 OSStr, which is linked to the decision on the signage itself).
52.2006.124 · ti (art. 101 OSStr)
Municipality v. State Council Regarding Traffic Ban and Exemptions
Cited in the preamble regarding the principle that signs should not be placed without necessity.
52.2006.53 · ti (art. 101 OSStr)
Resident v. Local Authority on Traffic Restrictions and Land Use Plan Compliance
Cited in the 'Per questi motivi' section, although the reasoning section discussed its violation regarding necessity/adequacy, it is not the ground for the partial acceptance in order 1.