151.3
LDISBehiGLHand
CH
CH
Art. 11 Legge federale del 13 dicembre 2002 sull'eliminazione di svantaggi nei confronti dei disabili (LDis) - Principi generali
LDis
Art. 11 LDis · Principi generali
Il giudice o l’autorità amministrativa non ordina l’eliminazione di uno svantaggio se il beneficio che il disabile ne trarrebbe è sproporzionato in particolare rispetto: a. ai costi che ne risultano; b. agli interessi della protezione dell’ambiente o della protezione della natura e del paesaggio; c. agli interessi della sicurezza del traffico o dell’esercizio.
Il giudice fissa l’indennità secondo l’articolo 8 capoverso 3 tenendo conto delle circostanze, della gravità della discriminazione e del valore della prestazione in questione. L’indennità ammonta al massimo a 5000 franchi.
Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (24)
BGE 151 I 73 (Art. 11 Abs. 1 BehiG)
Disability discrimination claim for a personal assistant to perform administrative study tasks under the Disability Discrimination Act fails on proportionality as it would lower academic standards.
Proportionality principle applied to deny the claim because the assistant would improperly lower academic standards.
BRGE.I.Nr.0054.2013 · zh (Art. 11 Abs. 1 lit. a BehiG)
Accessible Internal Access Not Required for Futile Design
Cited to discuss the general principle that elimination of disadvantages should be waived if the benefit to disabled persons is disproportionate to the economic cost, although its applicability to new constructions is questioned.
AC.2023.0249 · vd (art. 11 al. 1 LHand)
Permit Appeal Regarding Rental Park Preservation Law, Zoning, and Accessibility Requirements
The court confirmed the Municipality's finding that the conditions for dispensing with the elimination of architectural barriers were met due to disproportionate costs relative to the benefit for disabled persons.
AC.2022.0243 · vd (art. 11 LHand)
Hotel Renovation Accessibility Appeal
Cited in the final orders as the relevant provision for conducting the complete balancing of interests in the new decision.
WBE.2023.9 · ag (Art. 11 BehiG)
Property Owner v. Cantonal Government: Bus Stop Accessibility Project Upheld
Referred to in the context of financial interests versus equality interests, but ultimately found less significant than the equality mandate.
BRGE.IV.Nr.0179.202 · zh (Art. 11 Abs. 1 lit. a BehiG)
Asylum Facility Accessibility Requirements Appeal
Cited in the reasoning for the non-application of ordering the removal of a disadvantage if the expected benefit for disabled persons is disproportionate to the economic expenditure, which forms the basis for the remit back to the lower court.
2022 BKD 167 · be (Art. 11 Abs. 1 Bst. a BehiG)
Narcolepsy Accommodation Appeal for University Entrance Exam
Used in the reasoning to justify that the expected benefit of the granted measures is not disproportionate relative to the economic effort.
A-1472/2020 (Art. 11 Abs. 1 Bst. b BehiG)
Public Transport Information Panels vs. Historic Urban Landscape Preservation
Used to argue that the benefit of the installed information displays for autonomous use of public transport is disproportionate to the interests of heritage protection.
7H 19 181 · lu (Art. 11 Abs. 1 BehiG)
Bus Station Reconstruction Height and Disability Access Proportionality
This provision, concerning the proportionality of measures to eliminate disadvantages for disabled persons, forms the core legal basis for dismissing the appeal concerning the bus stop heights.
602 2014 96 · fr (art. 11 al. 1 LHand)
Appeal Regarding Restaurant Terrace Extension and Change of Use
This provision concerning disproportionate elimination of inequality was used as a basis for referring the matter back for further investigation regarding accessibility costs.
PVG 2014 24 · gr (Art. 11 Abs. 1 lit. a BehiG)
Applicant v. Heritage and Environmental Authorities (Accessible Footpath)
Cited in the reasoning as the basis for the finding that the expected benefit for disabled persons is disproportionate to the economic effort.
PVG 2014 24 · gr (Art. 11 Abs. 1 lit. b BehiG)
Applicant v. Heritage and Environmental Authorities (Accessible Footpath)
Cited in the reasoning as the basis for the finding that the expected benefit for disabled persons is disproportionate to the nature and heritage protection interests.
A-832/2014 (Art. 11 Abs. 1 BehiG)
Applicant's Failure to Proactively Assert Accommodation Needs Leads to Dismissal of Appeal
This provision allows for exceptions to the requirement to eliminate or cease discrimination if it appears disproportionate, which is mentioned as a potential limitation to the rights of disabled persons.
A-5603/2011 (Art. 11 Abs. 1 BehiG)
Accessibility vs. Cost: Platform Height Dispute
Establishes that discrimination must be tolerated if the expected benefit for persons with disabilities is disproportionate to the economic cost or traffic and operational safety concerns.
602 2011 63 · fr (Art. 11 LHand)
Company v. Prefect Regarding Footbath Accessibility Modification Order
Cited as the criterion for assessing proportionality in the context of eliminating inequality, which led to the annulment of the order.