313.0 VSTRRDPA

CH

Art. 29 Legge federale del 22 marzo 1974 sul diritto penale amministrativo (DPA)

DPA; Titolo terzo: Procedura penale amministrativa; Capo primo: Autorità; disposizioni generali di procedura; C. Disposizioni generali di procedura; I. Ricusazione

Apri la fonte ufficiale Atto completo (114 Articoli) Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Art. 29 DPA

I funzionari cui spetta di condurre un’inchiesta, di prendere o preparare una decisione, i periti, i traduttori e gli interpreti devono ricusarsi se: a. hanno un interesse personale nella causa; b. sono il coniuge o il partner registrato dell’imputato o convivono di fatto con lui; [tab] b bis. sono parenti o affini in linea retta o, fino al terzo grado, in linea collaterale con l’imputato; c. potrebbero, per altri motivi, avere una prevenzione nella causa.

Se la ricusazione è contestata, decide, riservato il reclamo alla Corte dei reclami penali del Tribunale penale federale (art. 27 cpv. 3), il superiore del funzionario in causa o di quello che ha chiesto la collaborazione del perito, traduttore o interprete.

Nei procedimenti giudiziari e per i funzionari e gli impiegati cantonali, la ricusazione è disciplinata dal diritto federale o cantonale applicabile.

← Art. 28 DPA Legge federale del 22 marzo 1974 sul diritto penale amministrativo (DPA) Art. 30 DPA →

Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (40)

BV.2025.23 (Art. 29 al. 1 DPA)

Recusal of Customs Officials Denied in VAT Evasion Case

Cited as the basis for the right to challenge a decision rejecting a recusal request.

BK 2025 134 · be (Art. 29 Abs. 3 VStrR)

Administrative Body's Recusal Request Against Judge and Clerk in Fraud Case Denied

Cited in reasoning (6.1 and 6.2) to establish that procedural and cost rules of the StPO apply to the administrative criminal proceedings, thus applying to orders 3, 4, and 5.

BV.2024.1 (Art. 29 Abs. 2 VStrR)

Recusal of Officers Denied, Evidence Review Remanded

Used to allow the appeal regarding the grounds for recusal, as the decision was against a decision on recusal.

BV.2023.22 (Art. 29 Abs. 3 VStrR i.V.m. Art. 59 Abs. 1 lit. b StPO i.V.m. Art. 37 Abs. 1 StBOG)

Withdrawal of Recusal Request Leads to Concluded Proceedings

Establishes the jurisdiction of the appellate chamber for handling the recusal request.

BV.2022.40 (Art. 29 Abs. 1 VStrR)

Appeal Dismissed: Investigating Officer's Actions Not Biased

This provision establishes the grounds for recusal of officials in administrative criminal proceedings.

BV.2022.40 (Art. 29 Abs. 2 VStrR)

Appeal Dismissed: Investigating Officer's Actions Not Biased

This provision concerns decisions on recusal and the possibility of appeal to the Federal Criminal Court's Complaints Chamber.

BV.2022.41 (Art. 29 Abs. 1 und 2 VStrR)

Appeal Denied: No Evidence of Investigating Officer Bias

Cited as the basis for the procedural rules governing recusal in administrative penal proceedings.

BV.2022.48 (Art. 29 Abs. 1 lit. c VStrR)

Official Disqualified from Issuing Penalty Order Due to Appearance of Bias

This provision was used to establish that there were grounds for the recusal of the official due to an objective appearance of bias.

BV.2022.48 (Art. 29 Abs. 2 VStrR)

Official Disqualified from Issuing Penalty Order Due to Appearance of Bias

This provision establishes the right to appeal decisions on recusal to the Federal Criminal Court's Complaints Chamber.

BV.2022.49 (Art. 29 Abs. 1 lit. c VStrR)

Official's Dual Role as Investigator and Decision-Maker Creates Appearance of Bias

Used to determine that B. was biased due to prior involvement in the case, leading to her exclusion.

BV.2022.32 (art. 29 al. 1 let. c DPA)

Recusal Challenge Dismissed: Investigator's Actions Not Demonstrably Biased

Applied the provision requiring officials to recuse themselves if circumstances give the appearance of bias.

BV.2022.32 (art. 29 al. 2 DPA)

Recusal Challenge Dismissed: Investigator's Actions Not Demonstrably Biased

Opened the appeal to the Federal Criminal Court against the decision rejecting the recusal request.

BV.2022.18 (Art. 29 Abs. 1 VStrR)

Federal Court Denies Recusal of Fedpol Officials in Fraud Case

Cited as the legal basis for the grounds of recusal being considered and rejected.

BV.2022.18 (Art. 29 Abs. 2 VStrR)

Federal Court Denies Recusal of Fedpol Officials in Fraud Case

Cited for the procedure of deciding on recusal requests and the possibility to appeal such decisions.

BV.2020.39 (Art. 29 Abs. 1 und 2 VStrR)

Application for Disqualification of Tax Investigators Denied

Cited as the basis for the applicant's request for recusal of officials.