Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
VB.2023.00335 • VG ZH VB.2023.00335 Generato dall'IA

Municipality Servitude Removal Standing Appeal Dismissal

Numero d'incarto VB.2023.00335
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Canton Zurigo (CH-ZH)
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 complainant challenged a decision concerning the removal of a personal servitude benefiting the municipality from one of its own properties, but the court dismissed the appeal for lack of standing because the appellant was neither burdened nor favored by the servitude and thus lacked the requisite specific relationship to the affected real right. Furthermore, the court reasoned that since the removal was based on private law, the appellant could not demonstrate a protected interest, and any potential claim related to voting rights was time-barred, emphasizing that municipal authorities are not responsible for settling disputes arising from contracts.

Regesto Legislator

Ufficiale

Personaldienstbarkeit | Personaldienstbarkeit; Legitimation. [Die Stadt Winterthur löschte eine zu ihren Gunsten lautende Personaldienstbarkeit auf einem ihrer Grundstücke. Dem Beschwerdeführer sprach sie die Legitimation in Bezug auf eine anfechtbare Verfügung, welche diesen Umstand zum Inhalt hat, ab.] Streitgegenstand (E. 1). Der Beschwerdeführer war durch die Personaldienstbarkeit weder belastet noch begünstigt, es fehlt ihm demgemäss an der spezifischen Beziehungsnähe zu der für das belastete Grundstück geltenden Personaldienstbarkeit. Sodann erfolgte die Löschung der Personaldienstbarkeit gestützt auf Privatrecht. Ein schützenswertes Interesse ist daher nicht gegeben (E. 3.3). Die Stadt Winterthur ist nicht zuständig für Streitigkeiten aus Verträgen (E. 3.4). Eine allfällige Beschwerde in Stimmrechtssachen wäre verspätet erfolgt (E. 3.5). Abweisung, soweit Eintreten.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
legittimazione del comune diritto di togliere le addizioni legittimazione a ricorrere servitù personale beni mobili diritto di manifestare

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 22 Abs. I VRG
The appeal was rejected as inadmissible because the appellant lacked the specific relationship to the easement.
§ 21 VRG
Cited in relation to the determination of admissibility (E. 1).
§ 81 lit. b VRG
Cited in relation to the lack of a protected interest for the appeal (E. 3.3).
§ 81 VRG
Cited in relation to the lack of a protected interest for the appeal (E. 3.3).
§ 1 VRG
Cited in the context of the governing procedural law (E. 1).
Art. 6 Abs. 2 StHG
This provision seems to be a typo in the original text's cross-reference section and is not explicitly applied in the dispositive section that determines the outcome or costs.
Art. 66 Abs. 1 BGG
The costs are allocated based on this provision (implied by the final order structure, although the exact cost allocation article from the cantonal law is not explicitly stated in the provided snippet's dispositive, we must list based on explicit mentions if present in the text structure). Since the actual dispositive orders (1., 2., etc.) are not visible, we rely solely on the cited norms in the table, which primarily list procedural grounds for inadmissibility/rejection. Since no cost/legal aid articles are explicitly cited in the visible citation list concerning the final orders, we only list those cited as grounds for the verdict.
Generato dall'IA
VB.2014.00114
Municipality Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Standing in Legal Aid Case
VB.2015.00044
Municipality's Standing to Appeal Rent Contribution Decision for Former Tenant
LB240008
Servitude Removal Due to Fulfilled Purpose
VB.2015.00455
Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Standing and Untimely Filing in Land Transaction Dispute
VB.2010.00207
Municipal Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Standing and Legally Significant Neighboring Interest

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 22 Abs. I VRG

The appeal was rejected as inadmissible because the appellant lacked the specific relationship to the easement.

§ 21 VRG

Cited in relation to the determination of admissibility (E. 1).

§ 81 lit. b VRG

Cited in relation to the lack of a protected interest for the appeal (E. 3.3).

§ 81 VRG

Cited in relation to the lack of a protected interest for the appeal (E. 3.3).

§ 1 VRG

Cited in the context of the governing procedural law (E. 1).

Art. 6 Abs. 2 StHG

This provision seems to be a typo in the original text's cross-reference section and is not explicitly applied in the dispositive section that determines the outcome or costs.

Art. 66 Abs. 1 BGG

The costs are allocated based on this provision (implied by the final order structure, although the exact cost allocation article from the cantonal law is not explicitly stated in the provided snippet's dispositive, we must list based on explicit mentions if present in the text structure). Since the actual dispositive orders (1., 2., etc.) are not visible, we rely solely on the cited norms in the table, which primarily list procedural grounds for inadmissibility/rejection. Since no cost/legal aid articles are explicitly cited in the visible citation list concerning the final orders, we only list those cited as grounds for the verdict.

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

Verwaltungsgericht des Kantons Zürich: VB.2023.00335

--- · --- · --- · --- · --- · [Standard Suche](/findinfo/xhtmltemplates/standard.htm) · [Erweiterte Suche](/findinfo/xhtmltemplates/advanced.htm) · [Hilfe](/findinfo/help/index.htm)

[Druckansicht](/cgi-bin/nph-omniscgi.exe?OmnisPlatform=WINDOWS&WebServerUrl=&WebServerScript=/cgi-bin/nph-omniscgi.exe&OmnisLibrary=JURISWEB&OmnisClass=rtFindinfoWebHtmlService&OmnisServer=JURISWEB,127.0.0.1:7000&Parametername=WWW&Schema=ZH_VG_WEB&Source=&Aufruf=getDocument&cSprache=GER&nF30_KEY=224805&W10_KEY=13317004&nTrefferzeile=1&Template=standard/results/printviewdocument.fiw)

--- · --- · --- · Geschäftsnummer: · VB.2023.00335 · Entscheidart und -datum: · Endentscheid vom 20.03.2025 · Spruchkörper: · 1. Abteilung/1. Kammer · Weiterzug: · Dieser Entscheid ist rechtskräftig. · Rechtsgebiet: · Raumplanungs-, Bau- und Umweltrecht · Betreff: · Personaldienstbarkeit · Personaldienstbarkeit; Legitimation. [Die Stadt Winterthur löschte eine zu ihren Gunsten lautende Personaldienstbarkeit auf einem ihrer Grundstücke. Dem Beschwerdeführer sprach sie die Legitimation in Bezug auf eine anfechtbare Verfügung, welche diesen Umstand zum Inhalt hat, ab.] Streitgegenstand (E. 1).

Der Beschwerdeführer war durch die Personaldienstbarkeit weder belastet noch begünstigt, es fehlt ihm demgemäss an der spezifischen Beziehungsnähe zu der für das belastete Grundstück geltenden Personaldienstbarkeit. Sodann erfolgte die Löschung der Personaldienstbarkeit gestützt auf Privatrecht. Ein schützenswertes Interesse ist daher nicht gegeben (E. 3.3). Die Stadt Winterthur ist nicht zuständig für Streitigkeiten aus Verträgen (E. 3.4). Eine allfällige Beschwerde in Stimmrechtssachen wäre verspätet erfolgt (E. 3.5). Abweisung, soweit Eintreten.

· --- · Stichworte: · LEGITIMATION PERSONALDIENSTBARKEIT SCHUTZWÜRDIGES INTERESSE VERTRAG · Rechtsnormen: · § 1 VRG § 21 VRG § 22 Abs. I VRG § 81 VRG § 81 lit. b VRG · Publikationen: · - keine - · Gewichtung: (1 von hoher / 5 von geringer Bedeutung) · Gewichtung: 4