Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
III 2022 92 • VG SZ III 2022 92 Generato dall'IA

Lack of Standing in Consolidated Appeals Against Municipal Council Decisions

Numero d'incarto III 2022 92
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Canton Svitto (CH-SZ)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Spese processuali a carico dell'autorità / Stato
Apri la fonte ufficiale Archivio Entscheidsuche Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Two parties separately challenged decisions concerning the same matter, which involved a municipal council's actions. The first appeal contested the municipal council's decision, while the second appeal contested a separate decision from the same municipal council. The court determined that both appeals were inadmissible because the respective appellants lacked standing, as they were not directly affected by the challenged administrative acts in a manner that would grant them a legally protected interest sufficient to bring the action.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Lack of Standing in Consolidated Appeals Against Municipal Council Decisions: The first appeal contested the municipal council's decision, while the second appeal contested a separate decision from the same municipal council. The court determined that both appeals were inadmissible because the respective appellants lacked standing, as they were not directly affected by the challenged administrative acts in a manner that would grant them a legally protected interest sufficient to bring the action.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
legittimazione a ricorrere legittimazione del comune interesse ad agire ricorso per carenza atti amministrativi nullità di una elezione
Generato dall'IA
III 2024 44
Appeal Against Municipal Council Administrative Decision
III 2017 233
Municipal Planning Appeal Standing Challenge
III 2019 113
Appeal Against Municipal Council Decision
II 2023 56
Municipality's Lack of Legal Standing to Appeal Health Insurance Apportionment
III 2022 66
Municipal Council Building Regulation Enforcement Appeal Inadmissibility

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 III 2022 92 |\n |\n \n\n

\n III 2022 98 \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 13. Januar 2023 |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n lic.iur. Achilles Humbel, Präsident |\n \n|\n |\n lic.iur. Karl Gasser, Richter Irene Thalmann, Richterin |\n \n|\n |\n MLaw Manuel Gamma, Gerichtsschreiber |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | |

|\n Parteien |\n \n \n1. Gemeinderat Morschach, Schulstrasse 6, 6443 Morschach, (Verfahren III 2022 92) \n2. Flurgenossenschaft A.________, \n (Verfahren III 2022 98) \n Beschwerdeführer, |\n

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

\n|\n |\n \n \n1. Gemeinderat Morschach, Schulstrasse 6, 6443 Morschach, \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 (beide Verfahren), \n4. C.________, \n Beschwerdegegner (beide Verfahren), \n5. Flurgenossenschaft A.________, c/o D.________, \n Verfahrensbeteiligte (im Verfahren III 2022 92), \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt Dr.iur. B.________, \n6. E.________, \n7. F.________, \n8. G.________, \n9. H.________, \n10. I.________, \n11. J.________, \n12. K.________, \n Beigeladene (im Verfahren III 2022 92), |\n

\n\n

\n