801.100 KRGLPTC

CH-GR

Art. 95 Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire du canton des Grisons (KRG) - Amende

Droit de la construction formel - Responsabilité, Rétablissement, Sanction

Ouvrir la source officielle Texte complet (137 Articles) Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Art. 95 KRG - Amende · Amende

1. Quiconque viole cette loi ou les décrets et décisions en découlant du canton ou des communes est puni d'une amende de 200 francs à 40 000 francs. Dans des cas particulièrement graves, notamment en cas de recherche de profit, l'autorité compétente n'est pas liée à ce maximum. Les gains illicites sont confisqués conformément aux dispositions du Code pénal suisse.

2. Est punissable l'infraction intentionnelle ou par négligence, commise par les personnes responsables selon l'article 93. En lieu et place d'une personne morale, d'une société en nom collectif ou en commandite, d'une entreprise individuelle ou d'une entité sans personnalité juridique, sont punissables les personnes physiques qui ont agi ou auraient dû agir pour elles. La personne morale, la société ou l'entité est solidairement responsable pour les amendes et les frais.

3. La compétence pour infliger la punition revient à l'autorité communale du bâtiment. Dans les cas où la restauration de l'état légal est ordonnée par l'autorité BAB, celle-ci est compétente pour la punition.

4. Le droit de punir se prescrit par cinq ans à compter de la fin de l'acte punissable. La prescription absolue intervient après dix ans. La peine d'une infraction se prescrit en cinq ans.

← Art. 94 KRG - Rétablissement de l'état légal Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire du canton des Grisons (KRG) - Objet Art. 96 KRG →

Décisions judiciaires appliquant cette disposition (66)

VR3 2024 67 · gr (Art. 95 Abs. 1 KRG)

Municipality v. Appellant: Building Ban Violation and Penalty Justification

This article was cited as the legal basis for the fine imposed for violating cantonal and communal regulations.

R 2024 33 · gr (Art. 95 Abs. 1 KRG)

Municipal Order Appeal on Unauthorized Attic Use and Fine

Cited in the first instance decision (Dispositive No. 4) for ordering the confiscation of illicit profit.

R 2024 33 · gr (Art. 95 Abs. 2 KRG)

Municipal Order Appeal on Unauthorized Attic Use and Fine

Cited in the reasoning (Erwägung 8.2) concerning the joint and several liability of the legal entity for fines and costs.

R 2024 33 · gr (Art. 95 KRG)

Municipal Order Appeal on Unauthorized Attic Use and Fine

Cited in the reasoning (Erwägung 8.2) to define the penalty for violating spatial planning laws (fines).

R 2024 34 · gr (Art. 95 Abs. 1 KRG)

Municipal Order on Unlawful Attic Studio Use Upheld, Forfeiture of Gains Partially Annulled

Cited in the dispositive of the initial administrative decision (point 4) regarding the confiscation of illicit profits, which the court implicitly dealt with by returning the matter for a new decision on this point.

R 2024 34 · gr (Art. 95 KRG)

Municipal Order on Unlawful Attic Studio Use Upheld, Forfeiture of Gains Partially Annulled

Cited in the dispositive of the initial administrative decision (point 6) to impose costs for the fact-finding and restoration procedure on A._____ AG.

R 2022 103 · gr (Art. 95 Abs. 1 KRG)

Appeal Against Municipal Fine and Path Prohibition Following Unauthorized Construction

Cited as the legal basis for imposing the administrative fine (Busse), which the court upheld.

R 2022 38 · gr (Art. 95 KRG)

Material Storage Site Illegality and Permit Requirement Appeal

Cited as the legal basis for imposing the fine on the appellant.

R 2022 77 · gr (Art. 95 KRG)

Land Use Violation Outside Building Zone and Permit Requirements

The article under which the fine imposed on the appellant was issued.

R 2021 38 · gr (Art. 95 KRG)

Local Authority Order Upheld for Unauthorized Barn Conversion

Cited in the reasoning regarding the basis for imposing the fine.

R 2022 22 · gr (Art. 95 KRG)

Appeal Against Fine for Primary Residence Violation Upheld

This article established the basis for the fine imposed on the appellant for violating the primary residence obligation, which was confirmed in the final order.

R 2020 36 · gr (Art. 95 KRG)

Appeal Regarding Construction Deviation Fines and Façade Slats

The reduction of the fine imposed on B.________ is based on the assessment of the objective element of this provision regarding building ordinance violations.

R 2019 83 · gr (Art. 95 KRG)

Appeal Against Unauthorized Construction Restoration and Penalty Order

This provision was discussed in relation to the justification of the fines imposed.

R 2018 33 · gr (Art. 95 cpv. 1 LPTC)

Municipality Fine Upheld for Unpermitted Change of Use

This provision was cited to justify the fine imposed on the appellant for violating building regulations.

R 2017 89 · gr (art. 95 cpv. 1 della legge cantonale sulla pianificazione territoriale (LPTC; CSC 801.100))

Municipal Denial of Building Permit for Fence and Paving Upheld

Cited in the reasoning to justify the initiation of the contravention procedure against the appellant, which is confirmed by the rejection of the appeal.