370.100 VRGLGA

CH-GR

Art. 6a Act on Administrative Justice (VRG) - Grounds for Recusal

**General Principles of Procedure - Conduct of Proceedings, Recusal, Deadlines, and Electronic Legal Transactions - Recusal**

Open official source Full Act (98 Articles) Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Art. 6a VRG · Grounds for Recusal

1. Persons who are required to make, prepare, or draft a decision must recuse themselves ex officio or upon request in proceedings where

a) they themselves; their spouses; partners in a registered partnership or de facto cohabitation; fiancés; relatives and in-laws up to the third degree; their adoptive, foster, or stepparents; and their adoptive, foster, or stepchildren are involved in the proceedings or otherwise have a direct interest in the outcome of the proceedings;

b) they have a particular friendship or enmity with a party, or with an injured or otherwise involved person in the proceedings;

c) they have a special duty or dependency relationship with a party, or with an injured or otherwise involved person in the proceedings;

d) they have participated in an official capacity in a decision of a lower instance in the same matter;

e) they have been heard as witnesses or consulted as experts;

f) they appear biased based on other circumstances.

2. Grounds for recusal according to Paragraph a continue to exist after the dissolution of marriage, engagement, registered partnership, or de facto cohabitation.

3. Grounds for recusal according to Paragraph d do not apply to municipalities.

← Art. 6 VRG - Joinder and Severance of Proceedings Act on Administrative Justice (VRG) - Cantonal Authorities Art. 6b VRG →

Court Decisions Applying This Provision (29)

VR2 2025 56 · gr (Art. 6a VRG)

Failure to Perfect Appeal Grounds and Procedural Diligence

Cited in the reasoning regarding the requirement for filing a motion for recusation, which was bypassed by the failure to meet deadlines related to the original appeal, leading to the outcome in order 1.

R 2024 33 · gr (Art. 6a Abs. 1 VRG)

Municipal Order Appeal on Unauthorized Attic Use and Fine

Cited in the reasoning (Erwägung 3.5.3) to define the grounds for abstention (Ausstand) for administrative decision-makers, which was invoked regarding the bias of the municipal president.

U 2023 42 · gr (Art. 6a Abs. 1 lit. b VRG)

Judges' Recusal Denied Despite Allegations of Close Association with Opposing Counsel

Used to reject the request for refusal against B._____ because no exceptional friendship warranting refusal was found.

R 2018 46 · gr (Art. 6a Abs. 1 lit. d VRG)

Appeal Dismissed: Challenge to Building Permits and Land-Use Plan Lacks Standing

Cited in the reasoning to define circumstances for mandatory withdrawal (Ausstand) of decision-makers.

R 2018 46 · gr (Art. 6a Abs. 1 lit. f VRG)

Appeal Dismissed: Challenge to Building Permits and Land-Use Plan Lacks Standing

Cited in the reasoning to define circumstances for mandatory withdrawal (Ausstand) of decision-makers based on other circumstances suggesting bias.

R 2018 46 · gr (Art. 6a Abs. 3 VRG)

Appeal Dismissed: Challenge to Building Permits and Land-Use Plan Lacks Standing

Cited in the reasoning to exclude the application of withdrawal grounds lit. d to municipalities.

R 2018 57 · gr (Art. 33 cpv. 3 della legge sui comuni del Cantone dei Grigioni (LCom; CSC 175.050] in combinato disposto con l'art. 6a cpv. 1 lett. a LGA)

Appeal Against Building Permit for Three Single-Family Homes Dismissed

Cited in the reasoning regarding the duty of abstention (recusal) of the municipal secretary, which was rejected as tardy and unfounded.

A 2018 4 · gr (Art. 6a VRG)

Application for Recusal of Administrative Judge Dismissed

Cited in the reasoning to define the conditions under which a judge must recuse themselves.

PVG 2017 31 · gr (Art. 6a VRG)

Municipal Consultant Bias in Permit Review

Although discussed, this article concerning conflict of interest for decision-makers was cited in the reasoning when discussing the scope of review, but not explicitly in the operative part as the main ground for the verdict.

R 2016 40 · gr (Art. 6a - 6c VRG)

Alpine Farming Cooperative Exclusion and Fine Unlawful Due to Lack of Legal Basis and Insufficient Justification

Cited as the provisions governing recusation in the context of municipal law according to Art. 22 para. 3 GG.

R 2016 40 · gr (Art. 6a Abs. 1 lit. d VRG)

Alpine Farming Cooperative Exclusion and Fine Unlawful Due to Lack of Legal Basis and Insufficient Justification

Cited in the reasoning to discuss the appellant's objection regarding the bias (multiple capacity) of the Alpgenossenschaft president on the municipal board, although ultimately rejected as untimely.

A 2016 32 · gr (Art. 6a VRG)

Tourism Tax Assessment Validity and Equality Challenge

Cited as the basis listing the circumstances under which a judge must recuse themselves, in response to the appellants' objection of bias.

S 2016 73 · gr (Art. 6a VRG)

Disability Insurance Extension Denial Upheld Due to Counsel Diligence

Used to review and reject the appellant's request for recusal (Ausstand) of the adjudicator B._____.

PVG 2013 5 · gr (Art. 6a Abs. 1 lit. a VRG)

Recusal of Officials Based on Shareholdings and Board Membership in Related Companies

The court found that the shareholding stake did not meet the requirement of an immediate interest in the outcome of the proceedings required by this article.

PVG 2013 5 · gr (Art. 6a Abs. 1 lit. f VRG)

Recusal of Officials Based on Shareholdings and Board Membership in Related Companies

The court found that the shareholding stake did not violate this provision, although it noted the provision is applicable to municipalities, contrary to the respondent's assertion.