784.10
FMGLTC
CH
CH
Art. 35 Legge del 30 aprile 1997 sulle telecomunicazioni (LTC) - Utilizzazione di aree d’uso comune
LTC; Capitolo 5: Impianti di telecomunicazione
Art. 35 LTC · Utilizzazione di aree d’uso comune
Il proprietario di un’area d’uso comune (quali strade, sentieri, piazze pubbliche, fiumi, laghi e rive) è tenuto ad autorizzare i fornitori di servizi di telecomunicazione a utilizzare tale area per la costruzione e l’esercizio di linee e di telefoni pubblici, per quanto tali installazioni non pregiudichino l’uso comune.
I fornitori di servizi di telecomunicazione prendono in considerazione la destinazione e l’utilizzazione del fondo interessato e sopportano le spese per il ripristino dello stato originario. Sono tenuti a spostare le loro linee se il proprietario del fondo intende utilizzarlo in un modo incompatibile con la presenza delle stesse.
Il Consiglio federale disciplina i dettagli, in particolare l’obbligo di coordinazione dei fornitori, nonché le condizioni per lo spostamento delle linee e dei telefoni pubblici.
L’autorizzazione va concessa con procedura semplice e rapida. Oltre alle tasse a copertura delle spese, non è possibile chiedere un indennizzo per l’utilizzazione di un’area d’uso comune, a meno che tale uso ne sia pregiudicato.
Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (26)
VWBES.2002.282 · so (Art. 35 Abs. 2 FMG)
Telecommunications Provider Challenges Void Administrative Fees and Usage Charges on Public Roads
Cited in relation to the appeal point concerning the condition requiring the concessionaire to bear all costs for relocations due to road corrections or other public works, deeming it contrary to federal law.
VWBES.2002.282 · so (Art. 35 Abs. 4 FMG)
Telecommunications Provider Challenges Void Administrative Fees and Usage Charges on Public Roads
Cited to confirm that no compensation for the use of ground and soil may be demanded as long as public use is not impaired.
VWBES.2002.282 · so (Art. 35 FMG)
Telecommunications Provider Challenges Void Administrative Fees and Usage Charges on Public Roads
Used to rule that the cantonal User Fee for infrastructure use, if it exceeds cost-covering fees, is incompatible with federal law because it constitutes an unauthorized compensation for land use.
FI.2024.0020 · vd (Art. 35 al. 4 LTC)
Telecommunications Provider v. Municipality: Permitting Fees for Public Domain Excavation
This provision is the main ground used to allow the appeal, concluding that only the administrative fee allowed under this article can be collected.
52.2019.448 · ti (art. 35 LTC)
Telecommunications Provider Fee Challenge Against Road Maintenance Consortium
The main ground for accepting the appeal was the violation of this federal law provision concerning the gratuitous use of common areas by telecommunications service providers.
WBE.2016.424 · ag (Art. 35 Abs. 1 FMG)
Telecommunications Line Placement and Federal Preemption
This provision governs the requirements for granting permits for the use of public land for telecommunication lines and facilities, stating that such use must be permitted if it does not impair public use.
2017.04.05.vv.4 · bl (Art. 35 FMG)
Telecommunications Provider v. Cantonal Road Authority (Permit for Access Shafts)
Cited as the legal basis for granting or denying permits for the use of public land for telecommunication lines and access shafts.
AGVE.2017.30 · ag (Art. 35 Abs. 1 FMG)
Federal Telecommunications Law and Road Shaft Permitting for Signal Conversion Devices
Used to establish that devices converting optical signals to electromagnetic signals, and the access shafts for them, are considered part of the lines and thus fall under federal telecommunications law for authorization.
AGVE.2017.30 · ag (Art. 35 Abs. 1 FMG)
Federal Law Governs Fiber Optic to Copper Signal Converters in Road Shafts
This provision is cited as the legal basis for granting permits for the use of public land for telecommunication lines, including the devices (µCANs) and access shafts necessary for their operation.
VB.2014.00108 · zh (Art. 35 FMG)
Road Project Relocation Costs: Telecommunication Provider Bears Expense
This article is cited as the legal basis for determining that the telecommunications service provider must bear the costs of relocating its lines due to the road project.
A-1239/2012 (Art. 35 Abs. 1 FMG)
National Road Authority to Fund Cable Conduit Relocation
Obligates owners of common land to permit telecommunications providers the use of this land for lines, provided they do not impede common use.
A-1239/2012 (Art. 35 Abs. 2 FMG)
National Road Authority to Fund Cable Conduit Relocation
Requires telecommunications providers to relocate their lines if the landowner intends to use the property in a way incompatible with the lines.
FI.2013.0012 · vd (Art. 35 LTC)
Telecommunications Company v. Municipality Regarding Fiber Optic Line Installation Fees
The ruling is based on the application and interpretation of this Federal Law concerning the use of public domain by telecommunications concessionaires, which dictates the conditions for charging fees (emoluments) versus compensation (dédommagement).
AC.2011.0243 · vd (art. 35 al. 4 LTC)
Telecommunications Provider v. Municipality (Trenching Permit Fees Appeal Jurisdiction)
Cited in the reasoning as the federal basis governing the calculation of administrative fees for telecommunication installations, which was the core subject of the dispute.
2006.64 · bl (Art. 35 Abs. 2 FMG)
Telecommunications Concessionaire v. Canton: Public-Law Contract Validity and Statute of Limitations
Cited regarding the obligation to restore the original condition after laying lines and the responsibility for costs.