Legislator Case Law & Legislation
150.1 VRGCPJA CH-FR

Art. 21 Code of Administrative Procedure and Jurisdiction (CPJA) - Reasons

Procedure - General Procedural Provisions and First Instance Procedure - Recusal
Open official source Full Act (166 Articles) Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Art. 21 VRG - Reasons · Reasons

1. A person who is responsible for instructing on a matter, making a decision, or participating in it must recuse themselves ex officio or upon request if

a) they themselves, their spouse, registered partner, fiancé, their relatives or in-laws in a direct line or up to and including the fourth degree in a collateral line, the husband or registered partner of the sister or the wife or registered partner of the brother of their spouse, their registered partner, or the person for whom they are the designated representative or guardian or with whom they share a household, has a direct interest in the matter;

b) they are a member of an organ of a legal entity or a company that has a direct interest in the matter;

c) they have previously been involved in the matter in another capacity;

d) they are a representative or guardian of a party or are related or in-law in a direct line with the representative or guardian or is their spouse or registered partner;

e) there exists a close friendship or personal enmity or a special duty or dependency relationship between them and a party;

f) other serious reasons give rise to doubts about their impartiality.

2. The dissolution of the marriage or partnership does not remove the reason for recusal due to in-law relations.

3. Members of the State Council or the executive organ of a public law corporation are not required to recuse themselves in non-contentious matters concerning institutions whose administration they belong to in an official capacity.

← Art. 20 VRG Code of Administrative Procedure and Jurisdiction (CPJA) - Subject Matter of the Act Art. 22 VRG - Time Limits →

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 (20)

602 2024 111 · fr (art. 21 al. 1 let. c CPJA)
Property Owners v. Cantonal Tribunal (Recusal of Entire Tribunal)
Cited in the reasoning to state that M.________ will not deal with appeal files from her other employer.
602 2024 111 · fr (art. 21 al. 1 let. e CPJA)
Property Owners v. Cantonal Tribunal (Recusal of Entire Tribunal)
Cited in the reasoning when discussing the alleged relationship of obligation or dependency between the judges and M.________.
602 2024 111 · fr (art. 21 al. 1 let. f CPJA)
Property Owners v. Cantonal Tribunal (Recusal of Entire Tribunal)
Cited in the reasoning regarding the lack of personal interest of a colleague (M.________) in the appeal decisions.
602 2023 172 · fr (Art. 21 CPJA al. 1 let. f)
Recusal Denial in Land Use Dispute Over Prior Ruling Adherence
This article enumerates the grounds for recusation, specifically concerning serious reasons to doubt impartiality, which was the core issue addressed.
604 2024 56 · fr (Art. 21 al. 1 CPJA)
Appeal Regarding Recusal of Lieutenant Prefect and Right to be Heard in Parking Fee Dispute
The decision rejects the appeal which was based on the requirements for recusation under this article, implicitly confirming the lower court's decision not to recuse based on the same article (as seen in Point 3.5 reasoning).
608 2023 168 · fr (art. 21 al. 1 let. e et f CPJA)
Attorney Standing and Timeliness in Recusal Motion Regarding Administrative Appeal Clerk
Cited as the cantonal law criteria for mandatory recusal based on close friendship/animosity or other serious doubts regarding impartiality (although the court ultimately found the request unfounded).
602 2021 115 · fr (Art. 21 al. 1 let. f CPJA)
Property Owner v. Prefectural Decision on Expert Recusal for Bias
This provision was cited in the reasoning to establish the grounds under which a person must recuse themselves due to grounds casting serious doubt on their impartiality, which relates directly to the subject matter of the dismissed appeal (recusal request).
601 2022 83 · fr (Art. 21 al. 1 let. f CPJA)
Recusal Denial in Inheritance Dispute Appeal Over Prior Adverse Rulings
The request for disqualification (récusation) of the judges was rejected based on this provision.
608 2021 218 · fr (Art. 21 Abs. 1 lit. f VRG)
Motion for Judicial Recusal Denied in Social Security Appeal Due to Prior Private Law Involvement
Cited as the general provision under which a person must recuse themselves if other serious reasons raise doubts about their impartiality, relevant to the rejected recusal request.
601 2019 214 · fr (art. 21 al. 1 CPJA)
Recusal of Interim Communal Council Denied Due to Lack of Objective Evidence of Partiality
Cited as the general legal basis for the duty of recusal in administrative proceedings.
601 2018 279 · fr (Art. 21 al. 1 let. c CPJA)
Recusal Denial Due to Prior Procedural Involvement
Although cited in the reasoning regarding the grounds for recusation, this provision was not explicitly named in the dispositive, which only rejected the request.
601 2018 279 · fr (Art. 21 al. 1 let. f CPJA)
Recusal Denial Due to Prior Procedural Involvement
Although cited in the reasoning regarding the grounds for recusation, this provision was not explicitly named in the dispositive, which only rejected the request.
601 2018 179 · fr (Art. 21 al. 1 let. f du code cantonal du 23 mai 1991 de procédure et de juridiction administrative (CPJA; RSF 150.1))
Claimant's Late Recusal Request Dismissed in Medical Liability Case
Although mentioned in the reasoning, this article defining grounds for recusation was not used in the dispositive to rule on the merits.
601 2017 221 · fr (art. 21 al. 1 let. e CPJA)
Public Agent Dismissal Procedural Delay Indemnity
Cited in the context of examining whether the relationship between the employee and C.________ constituted close friendship requiring recusation.
601 2018 31 · fr (Art. 21 VRG)
Denial of Conditional Release Upheld Based on High Reoffense Risk Assessment for Child Sexual Offender
Cited in the context of the appellant's rejected claim regarding bias/recusal of committee members.