Legislator Case Law & Legislation
461.10 GSCHNLCPN CH-NE

Art. 62 Nature Protection Act (NPA), of June 22, 1994 - Legal Remedies for Associations for the Protection of Nature and Landscape

4 Education - Science - Culture - Environment - 46 Environment - 461 Nature Conservation - CHAPTER 6 Execution
Open official source Full Act (75 Articles) Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Art. 62 Nature Protection Act (NPA), of June 22, 1994 - Legal Remedies for Associations for the Protection of Nature and Landscape · Legal Remedies for Associations for the Protection of Nature and Landscape

**Article X: Nationally Significant Associations and Their Cantonal Sections**

Nationally significant associations and their cantonal sections, as well as the cantonal associations recognized by the State Council, which, according to their statutes, are dedicated to the protection of nature and the landscape or similar tasks purely based on idealism, have the right to

a) oppose zoning plans intended to ensure the protection of biotopes, geological objects, or natural sites;

b) appeal against classification orders (Art. 30), decisions made regarding exemptions (Art. 35 to 38) and compensation (Art. 39 to 41), as well as all decisions made in application of the federal law on the protection of nature and the landscape.

← Art. 61 Nature Protection Act (NPA), of June 22, 1994 - Appeals 4 Education - Science - Culture - Environment - 46 Environment - 461 Nature Protection - CHAPTER ONE General Provisions Art. 63 Law on Nature Protection (LNP), June 22, 1994 - Legal Remedies of Municipalities and Other Associations →

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 (1)

CDP.2010.424 · ne (Art. 62 let. a LCPN)
Cantonal Land Use Plan Modification for Wind Farm Turbine Dimensions Upheld in Part, Remitted in Part for Reassessment of Necessity.
Cited in the reasoning to explain why the two associations lacked standing to oppose the modification, which supported order 1.