Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
II 2025 15 • VG SZ II 2025 15 Generato dall'IA

Liquidator v. Public Works Authority Regarding Compensatory Charge

Numero d'incarto II 2025 15
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Canton Svitto (CH-SZ)
Data della decisione
Apri la fonte ufficiale Archivio Entscheidsuche Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

A company in liquidation appealed a decision regarding a compensatory charge (benefit contribution) levied by the public works authority. The court held that the imposition of the benefit contribution was lawful because the relevant cantonal law permitted such a levy for specific public infrastructure projects, and the appellant, as the direct beneficiary of the infrastructure improvements funded by the charge, was correctly assessed, regardless of the company's subsequent liquidation status.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Liquidator v. Public Works Authority Regarding Compensatory Charge: The court held that the imposition of the benefit contribution was lawful because the relevant cantonal law permitted such a levy for specific public infrastructure projects, and the appellant, as the direct beneficiary of the infrastructure improvements funded by the charge, was correctly assessed, regardless of the company's subsequent liquidation status.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
contributo sostitutivo prestazione di diritto pubblico lavori pubblici qualità di beneficiario liquidazione della sagl indennità per insolvenza Kausalabgaben (Vorteilsabgabe) | Kausalabgaben
Generato dall'IA
II 2019 96
Company v. Civil Engineering Office Regarding Benefit Levy for Reconstruction
III 2017 27
Social Assistance Recipient v. State Agency Regarding Asset Liquidation Condition
III 2017 176
Appeal Regarding Expropriation Compensation Valuation
II 2024 11
Construction Company Benefit Levy Challenge
ZK1 2021 26
Dismissal of Appeal Due to Corporate Liquidation and Claim Recognition in Insolvency Proceedings

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

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n II 2025 15 |\n |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 23. Juni 2025 |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n Dr.iur. Vital Zehnder, Präsident |\n \n|\n |\n Dr.oec. Andreas Risi, Richter Dr.iur. Frank Lampert, Richter |\n \n|\n |\n Dr.iur. Thomas Twerenbold, Gerichtsschreiber |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Parteien |\n A.________GmbH in Liquidation, \n Beschwerdeführerin, |\n \n|\n |\n gegen |\n \n|\n |\n Tiefbauamt, Postfach 1251, 6431 Schwyz, \n Vorinstanz, |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Gegenstand |\n Kausalabgaben (Vorteilsabgabe) |\n \n\n

\n \n

Sachverhalt: