Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
III 2017 233 • VG SZ III 2017 233 Generato dall'IA

Municipal Planning Appeal Standing Challenge

Numero d'incarto III 2017 233
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Canton Svitto (CH-SZ)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Archivio Entscheidsuche Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

A group of petitioners, including a limited liability company and several individuals, challenged a municipal council's decision regarding a planning matter, which was upheld by two higher administrative bodies. The court reasoned that the appeal was inadmissible because the petitioners failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the challenged decision directly affected their legally protected interests, as required for standing, thereby affirming the previous rulings of the lower instances.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 66 Abs. 1 BGG; Municipal Planning Appeal Standing Challenge: The court reasoned that the appeal was inadmissible because the petitioners failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the challenged decision directly affected their legally protected interests, as required for standing, thereby affirming the previous rulings of the lower instances.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
legittimazione a ricorrere interesse giuridicamente protetto impugnazione di decisioni amministrative legittimazione a contestare licenza legittimazione del comune licenza edilizia comunale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art. 66 Abs. 1 BGG
Costs were imposed on the appellant.
Generato dall'IA
III 2020 203
Challenge to Planning Decision Admissibility
III 2019 109
Appeal Against Municipal Zoning Decision
III 2023 126
Building Permit Approval Standing Challenge
III 2019 70
Municipal Council v. Planning Law Setback Challenge
III 2022 127
Planning Authority Decision Appeal

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
Art. 66 Abs. 1 BGG

Costs were imposed on the appellant.

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| | | |\n III 2017 233 |\n |\n \n\n

\n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 27. Juli 2018 |\n \n\n

\n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n lic.iur. Achilles Humbel, Präsident |\n \n|\n |\n Ruth Mikšovic-Waldis, Richterin Monica Huber-Landolt, Richterin |\n \n|\n |\n MLaw Joëlle Sigrist, Gerichtsschreiberin |\n \n\n

\n \n \n

\n\n| | |

|\n Parteien |\n \n \n1. A.________ GmbH, \n2. B.________, \n3. C.________, \n4. D.________, \n vertreten durch C.________ Beschwerdeführer, |\n

\n|\n |\n gegen |\n

\n|\n |\n \n \n1. Gemeinderat Altendorf, Dorfplatz 3, Postfach 155, 8852 Altendorf, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt lic.iur. E.________, \n2. Amt für Raumentwicklung ARE, Bahnhofstrasse 14, \n Postfach 1186, 6431 Schwyz, \n3. Regierungsrat des Kantons Schwyz, Bahnhofstrasse 9, \n Postfach 1260, 6431 Schwyz, \n Vorinstanzen, |\n

\n\n

\n