Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
VR3 2025 14 • KG GR VR3 2025 14 Generato dall'IA

Appeal Against Mobile Mast Decision Inadmissible Due to Unpaid Cost Deposit

Numero d'incarto VR3 2025 14
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Canton Grigioni (CH-GR)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)
Spese processuali senza spese
Apri la fonte ufficiale Archivio Entscheidsuche Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

A party filed an appeal against a building and objection decision concerning a mobile phone mast, but failed to pay the ordered cost deposit of CHF 4'000 by the deadline specified in a formally served procedural order, which explicitly warned of the consequence of non-admission. The court ruled not to enter into the appeal pursuant to the relevant law, which mandates non-admission if the cost deposit is not timely paid despite prior warning, but ultimately decided to waive court costs due to the minimal procedural effort involved.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 74 Abs. 3 VRG, Art. 43 Abs. 3 lit. b VRG, Art. 73 Abs. 1 VRG, Art. 74 Abs. 1 und Abs. 2 VRG; Appeal Against Mobile Mast Decision Inadmissible Due to Unpaid Cost Deposit: The court ruled not to enter into the appeal pursuant to the relevant law, which mandates non-admission if the cost deposit is not timely paid despite prior warning, but ultimately decided to waive court costs due to the minimal procedural effort involved.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
precetto esecutivo censure procedurali spese di procedura mancato versamento dell'anticipo spese legittimazione a ricorrere omesso versamento della cauzione Baueinsprache (Mobilfunkanlage) | Baurecht

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art. 74 Abs. 3 VRG
The appeal was not heard because the required cost deposit was not paid, as stipulated by this article.
Art. 43 Abs. 3 lit. b VRG
Cited as the basis for the presiding judge to decide alone when an appeal is obviously inadmissible, which is the case here due to non-payment of costs.
Art. 73 Abs. 1 VRG
Cited as the general rule for allocating court costs, although no costs were ultimately charged in this specific order.
Art. 74 Abs. 1 und Abs. 2 VRG
Cited to establish the authority to demand and set a deadline for the cost deposit.
Generato dall'IA
R 2024 83
Appeal Dismissed for Failure to Pay Cost Deposit
R 2024 84
Appeal Inadmissibility Due to Failure to Pay Cost Deposit
ZK2 2016 31
Appeal Dismissed for Failure to Pay Cost Deposit After Obstruction of Notification
VR3 2025 16
Appeal Dismissal for Late Fee Non-Payment
ZK2 2013 18
Appeal Dismissed for Failure to Pay Cost Deposit

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
Art. 74 Abs. 3 VRG

The appeal was not heard because the required cost deposit was not paid, as stipulated by this article.

Art. 43 Abs. 3 lit. b VRG

Cited as the basis for the presiding judge to decide alone when an appeal is obviously inadmissible, which is the case here due to non-payment of costs.

Art. 74 Abs. 1 und Abs. 2 VRG

Cited to establish the authority to demand and set a deadline for the cost deposit.

Art. 73 Abs. 1 VRG

Cited as the general rule for allocating court costs, although no costs were ultimately charged in this specific order.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Obergericht des Kantons Graubünden Dretgira superiura dal chantun Grischun Tribunale d'appello del Cantone dei Grigioni

Urteil vom 27. Februar 2025 mitgeteilt am

Referenz VR3 25 14

Instanz Dritte verwaltungsrechtliche Kammer

Besetzung Schmid Christoffel, Einzelrichterin

Parteien A._____ Beschwerdeführerin

gegen

B._____ AG Beschwerdegegnerin

Gemeinde C._____ Beschwerdegegnerin

Gegenstand Baueinsprache (Mobilfunkanlage)

Anfechtungsobj. Bauund Einsprachentscheid In Erwägung,

– dass die Beschwerdeführerin mit Eingabe vom 5. Februar 2025, eingegangen am 7. Februar 2025, Beschwerde gegen den Bauund Einsprachentscheid vom

18. Dezember 2024 der Gemeinde C._____ erhob,

– dass die Vorsitzende die Beschwerdeführerin mit prozessleitender Verfügung vom 11. Februar 2025 unter Androhung der Säumnisfolgen gemäss Art. 74 Abs. 3 VRG (Nichteintreten auf das Rechtsmittel) zur Leistung eines Kostenvorschusses in der Höhe von CHF 4'000 bis zum 24. Februar 2025 aufforderte,

– dass die prozessleitende Verfügung vom 11. Februar 2025 nachweislich am

12. Februar 2025 zugestellt wurde,

– dass der besagte Kostenvorschuss bis zum heutigen Datum nicht geleistet wurde,

– dass die zuständige Vorsitzende in einzelrichterlicher Kompetenz entscheidet, wenn ein Rechtsmittel offensichtlich unzulässig ist (Art. 43 Abs. 3 lit. b VRG [BR 370.100]),

– dass das Gericht von der beschwerdeführenden Partei einen Kostenvorschuss verlangen kann und für die Leistung des Kostenvorschusses der Partei eine angemessene Frist zu setzen ist (Art. 74 Abs. 1 und Abs. 2 VRG),

– dass wenn die Partei den Kostenvorschuss trotz Androhung der Säumnisfolgen nicht fristgemäss leistet, auf ihr Begehren nicht einzutreten ist (Art. 74 Abs. 3 VRG),

– dass bei diesem Ausgang des Verfahrens die Gerichtskosten in der Regel von der Beschwerdeführerin zu tragen sind (Art. 73 Abs. 1 VRG), doch aufgrund des geringen Verfahrensaufwandes ausnahmsweise keine Kosten erhoben werden,

2/3 wird erkannt:

1. Auf die Beschwerde wird nicht eingetreten.

2. Es werden keine Kosten erhoben.

3. [Rechtsmittelbelehrung]

4. [Mitteilungen]

3/3