172.6 VVRGLPJA

CH-VS

Art. 10 Act on Administrative Procedure and Jurisdiction (LPJA)

General Procedural Principles - Recusal

Open official source Full Act (114 Articles) Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Art. 10 VVRG

1. Persons who have to make a decision or prepare one shall recuse themselves if they

a) have a personal interest in the matter;

b) are related or connected to a party in a direct line or collateral line up to the third degree, or through marriage, engagement, or adoption;

c) are representatives of a party or have acted for a party in the same matter;

d) if a relative or in-law up to and including the second degree acts as a lawyer, representative or agent of one of the parties;

e) could be biased for other reasons.

2. A member of a collegiate authority, whose department or court has issued the contested decision, shall recuse themselves from the decision of that authority. In the event of a tie, the presiding member casts the deciding vote.

3. If the recusal of a member of a collegiate authority is contested, the authority shall decide excluding the member in question. In all other cases, the ordinary appeal instance decides (Art. 42 letter b).

← Art. 9 VVRG - Court of Jurisdictional Conflicts Act on Administrative Procedure and Jurisdiction (LPJA) - Principle Art. 11 VVRG - Voluntary Representation and Domicile for Service →

Court Decisions Applying This Provision (11)

A1 05 111 · vs (Art. 10 Abs. 1 VVRG)

Municipality Employee Contract Public Law Nature Determination

Cited in the reasoning to support the application of grounds for recusation to the employee due to the public nature of the task.

C2 23 85 · vs (art. 10 al. 1 let. e LPJA)

Applicant v. Supervisory Authority for Lawyers (Recusal Dispute)

Used as the substantive legal standard when rejecting the recusal request against specific members (Gattlen, Gagliardi, Burkhalter).

C2 23 85 · vs (art. 10 al. 3 LPJA)

Applicant v. Supervisory Authority for Lawyers (Recusal Dispute)

The decision was annulled because the request for recusal of the entire chamber should have been decided by the ordinary appellate authority, as per this provision.

A1 24 23 · vs (art. 10 al. 3 LPJA)

Inmate Leave Denial Appeal After Mother's Death

Cited in the reasoning section (cons. 2) regarding jurisdiction over recusation motions, which led to a finding of nullity in a prior related decision (A1 23 157), but not directly used in the final dispositive orders of this specific judgment, except as implied by the rejection of the recusation request in order 1.

F2 24 3 · vs (Art. 10 VVRG)

Recusal Denial Based on Alleged Procedural Errors and Opinions

The application for recusal was dismissed because no grounds for recusal according to this article were established.

A1 23 121 · vs (art. 10 al. 3 LPJA)

Appellant v. Sanctions and Accompaniment Measures Office

Cited regarding the jurisdiction of the appeal court to rule on the request for recusation that was part of the second appeal.

A3 22 38 · vs (Art. 10 VVRG)

Appealability of Acquittal and Costs Reimbursement in Obstruction Case

Cited in the reasoning regarding bias/recusal arguments in cantonal administrative procedures.

A3 22 1 · vs (Art. 10 Abs. 3 VVRG)

Police Court Composition and Recusal Flaws Void Decision

Cited in reasoning regarding the procedure for deciding on challenges to the impartiality of board members, which informed the decision to remand the case.

A1 19 214 · vs (Art. 10 Abs. 1 VVRG)

Litigant v. School Board Regarding Recusal and Failing Grades

The substantive ground used in point 5 to discuss the legal requirements for an official to recuse themselves (Ausstand).

C2 14 28 · vs (Art. 10 al. 1 LPJA)

Attorney Disciplinary Warning Upheld for Excessive Billing

Although the complaint regarding the right to recusal was rejected, this article was central to the procedural argument addressed in the reasoning.

A1 04 22 · vs (Art. 10 al. 1 lettre e LPJA)

Ambulance Service Authorization and Recusal of Competing Board Members

Cited as the basis for mandatory recusal when circumstances suggest a lack of impartiality, which the court found applicable to the members of the OCVS council.