784.10 FMGLTC

CH

Art. 36 Legge del 30 aprile 1997 sulle telecomunicazioni (LTC) - Diritto d’espropriazione e diritto di coutenza

LTC; Capitolo 5: Impianti di telecomunicazione

Apri la fonte ufficiale Atto completo (109 Articoli) Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Art. 36 LTC · Diritto d’espropriazione e diritto di coutenza

Qualora l’allestimento di un impianto di telecomunicazione sia di pubblico interesse, il DATEC conferisce il diritto d’espropriazione. La procedura si svolge conformemente alla legge federale del 20 giugno 1930 sull’espropriazione.

Per ragioni di pubblico interesse, segnatamente per tener conto degli imperativi della pianificazione del territorio, della protezione del paesaggio, del patrimonio storico e artistico, dell’ambiente, della natura e degli animali o di difficoltà tecniche, l’UFCOM può, su richiesta, obbligare i fornitori di servizi di telecomunicazione a consentire a terzi, dietro adeguata retribuzione, la coutenza dei loro impianti di telecomunicazione e di altri impianti, come canalizzazioni di cavi e stazioni emittenti, a condizione che gli impianti dispongano di capacità sufficienti.

Alle stesse condizioni, l’UFCOM può obbligare i fornitori di servizi di telecomunicazione a installare e a utilizzare congiuntamente impianti di telecomunicazione e altri impianti, come canalizzazioni di cavi e stazioni emittenti.

← Art. 35b LTC Legge del 30 aprile 1997 sulle telecomunicazioni (LTC) - Scopo Art. 36a LTC →

Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (12)

VVGE.2005.06.Nr.41 · ow (Art. 36 Abs. 1 FMG)

Mobile Antenna Permit Without Landowner Consent Upheld; Relocation for Health Concerns Rejected

Cited as a potential basis for the applicant to obtain a right of expropriation.

VPB i-sur-les-t-l-commun (Art. 36 LTC)

Administrative Decision Revoking Telephone Number for Non-Payment of Fees

The decision refers to the revocation of assigned address elements, which is covered by this article.

A-6750/2016 (Art. 36 Abs. 1 FMG)

Expropriation for Telecommunication Data Transmission on Power Lines

This provision establishes that the competent department grants the expropriation right, and the court found that the Federal Office of Energy (BFE) was not the competent department.

A-5014/2013 (Art. 36 Abs. 1 FMG)

Telecommunications Company v. Property Owners: Eminent Domain for Underground Cable Upheld

This provision is the legal basis for the granting of expropriation rights for telecommunication facilities, which is the core of the dispute.

VB.2009.00163 · zh (Art. 36 Abs. III FMG)

Mobile Antenna Permit Denial Upheld Near Protected Villa

This provision is cited as part of the legal basis for the decision, indicating it was considered in the court's final order.

VB.2008.00285 · zh (Art. 36 Abs. III FMG)

Cellular Antenna Permit Denial Upheld Due to Visual Intrusion Near Protected Area

Cited in the case context, though its specific role in the dispositive is not detailed here, it is listed under 'Rechtsnormen'.

BRKE.IV.Nrn.0002.00 · zh (Art. 36 FMG)

Municipal Council Land Registry Restriction on Antenna Sharing Nullified for Lack of Jurisdiction

The court implicitly relied on the context surrounding this article as the basis for the administrative power being disputed, even though the final order focused on competence.

V 04 374 1 · lu (Art. 36 Abs. 2 FMG)

Appeal Against Building Permit for Mobile Communication Base Station Due to Flawed Environmental Opinion Procedure

Cited in reasoning to clarify that this provision only regulates the right to co-use facilities and does not provide substantive planning requirements for site coordination.

V 04 374 2 · lu (Art. 36 Abs. 2 FMG)

Antenna Placement Coordination and Regulatory Enforcement

Cited in relation to the right to co-use telecommunication facilities, but considered not to provide substantive planning requirements.

V 03 209 · lu (Art. 36 Abs. 1 des Fernmeldegesetzes vom 30. April 1997 (FMG; SR 784.10))

Telecommunications Antenna Permit Termination Upheld Due to Withdrawn Landowner Consent

Cited to dismiss the appellant's argument that an expropriation right could grant access to the building site.

VB.2008.00285 · zh (Art. 36 Abs. III FMG)

Townscape Protection vs. Mobile Antenna Permit Denial

This provision relates to the requirement for necessary network coverage, which was weighed against aesthetic concerns.

VB.2009.00163 · zh (Art. 36 Abs. III FMG)

Cellular Antenna Permit Denial Upheld Near Neoclassical Villa

This provision relates to the possible co-use of a transmission site by other providers, as mentioned in the reasoning regarding the possibility of closing a coverage gap.