Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
175.2 VRGLPALGA CH-ZH

Art. 93 : Loi sur la procédure administrative (LPA)

Ouvrir la source officielle Texte complet (126 Articles) Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Art. 93

**L'ombudsman35 n'est pas habilité à rendre des décisions.** Sur la base de son examen, il peut

a. conseiller le plaignant sur la conduite à tenir,

b. discuter de l'affaire avec les autorités,

c. le cas échéant, émettre une recommandation écrite à l'attention de l'autorité examinée. Il transmet également cette recommandation à l'autorité administrative supérieure, au plaignant et, à sa discrétion, à d'autres parties intéressées et à d'autres autorités cantonales concernées.

c. Clôture

ment.

← Art. 92 Loi sur la procédure administrative (LPA) Art. 94 →

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cette disposition s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez ce texte législatif avec la jurisprudence, la doctrine et les dispositions connexes dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Décisions judiciaires appliquant cette disposition (2)

BRGE.IV.Nr.0124.201 · zh (Art. 91-93 des Bundesgerichtsgesetzes (§ 19a Abs. 2 VRG))
Appeal Against Denial of Building Permit for Elderly Care Center
Cited to determine the appealability of this final decision, which is considered an interlocutory decision (Zwischenentscheid).
VK.2018.00002 · zh (Art. 93 VRG)
Jurisdiction Over Contractual Termination of Municipal Nursing Home Care
This provision is cited in the context of the exclusion of jurisdiction due to the private law nature of the contract, although it appears in the reasoning regarding jurisdiction, it is not explicitly used in the final dispositive orders (which only state 'Nichteintreten' without citing a specific procedural basis for non-entry beyond the substance). However, based on the available text structure where '§ 1 VRG' is listed under 'Rechtsnormen' related to the decision's subject matter, and given the final order is 'Nichteintreten' (non-entry/dismissal for lack of jurisdiction), I must rely strictly on the dispositive. Since the text provided does not contain a numbered dispositive section (1., 2., etc.) listing the actual orders and citing articles for the decision, I must infer based on the available information structure. If the explicit dispositive is missing, and only reasoning and cited norms exist, I cannot fulfill the strict requirement. Assuming 'Nichteintreten' is the final order, and no specific procedural article is cited alongside it in a formal dispositive, I must check if any of the listed norms were used in the final ruling structure itself. Since the text does not provide the explicit dispositive orders, I cannot definitively extract the provisions used therein according to the strict rule (only cite provisions in the numbered orders at the end). Reviewing the provided text, there is no explicit numbered dispositive section showing procedural or substantive citations. Therefore, based strictly on the rule ('Include a provision **only if it is explicitly cited in the dispositive (the numbered orders at the end of the decision)**'), I must return an empty array as the required dispositive is absent.