150.1
VRGCPJA
CH-FR
CH-FR
Art. 78 Codice di procedura e di giurisdizione amministrativa (CPJA) - Motivi di Reclamo - Inadeguatezza
Procedura - Procedimento di Ricorso - Presupposti
Art. 78 VRG · Inadeguatezza
1. Un ricorso presso un'autorità amministrativa giudiziaria speciale può essere presentato anche per inadeguatezza, salvo che una legge escluda tale motivo di ricorso.
2. Davanti al Tribunale cantonale, l'inadeguatezza può essere contestata solo se
a) la questione riguarda l'ambito delle imposte pubbliche o delle assicurazioni sociali oppure
b) la questione è soggetta a ricorso presso un'autorità federale competente per la revisione di tale motivo di ricorso oppure
c) una legge prevede espressamente questo motivo di ricorso.
Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (128)
602 2025 49 · fr (art. 78 al. 2 CPJA)
Property Owner v. Insurer: Hail Damage Causality and Construction Defects
Cited to confirm that the court could not review the ground of expediency (opportunité).
601 2025 137 · fr (art. 78 al. 2 CPJA)
Parental Conflict Justifies School Transfer of Child
This procedural rule was cited to exclude the ground of expediency in the appeal.
602 2023 170 · fr (art. 78 al. 2 CPJA)
Municipal Development Plan Revision Appeals: Zoning Disputes and Unbuilt Reserve Limits
Cited, along with Art. 33 al. 3 let. b LAT, to assert the Court's full power of cognition in reviewing the DIME's approval decision.
602 2025 59 · fr (Art. 78 Abs. 2 Bst. c VRG)
Owner Appeal Dismissed Regarding Gravel Lot Permit and Vehicle Storage Prohibition
Cited in the reasoning to define the scope of challenging unreasonableness.
601 2024 92 · fr (art. 78 al. 2 CPJA)
Appeal Against Refusal of Conditional Release Based on Reclassified Psychiatric Diagnosis
Cited to confirm that the Tribunal cannot review the expediency of the decision in the absence of explicit legal authorization.
601 2024 111 · fr (art. 78 al. 2 CPJA)
Non-Citizen Residency Revocation After Short Marriage
Cited in the reasoning section concerning the standard of review, although the dispositive only confirms the rejection.
602 2024 107 · fr (Art. 78 al. 2 CPJA)
Municipality v. Planning Authority: Local Development Plan Adaptation Appeal
Cited as a procedural rule establishing the Court's full power of cognition on appeals against DIME's approval decisions.
601 2023 8 · fr (art. 78 al. 2 CPJA)
Mother's Residence Permit for Family Reunification with Adult Daughter
Cited to establish the limits of the court's review regarding the expediency of the contested decision.
602 2024 79 · fr (art. 78 al. 2 CPJA)
Landowner Appeal of Soil Embankment Removal Order After Volume Exceedance
Mentioned to confirm that the court could not review the expediency of the challenged decision.
601 2023 83 · fr (art. 78 al. 2 CPJA)
Public Employment Status in Private Law Contract Dispute and Wrongful Dismissal Indemnity
Cited regarding the inadmissibility of reviewing the ground of inopportunity.
602 2024 22 · fr (Art. 33 Abs. 3 lit. b des Bundesgesetzes vom 22. Juni 1979 über die Raumplanung (RPG; SR 700) in Verbindung mit Art. 78 Abs. 2 lit. c VRG)
Building Permit Denial Upheld Due to Insufficient Sight Distance for Private Street Access
Cited as the specific procedural basis for reviewing the inappropriateness of the decision concerning planning law.
602 2023 15 · fr (art. 78 al. 2 CPJA)
Landowner Appeal Regarding Agricultural to Business Rezoning Denial
Cited in conjunction with Art. 33 al. 3 let. b LAT concerning the Tribunal's full power of cognition on appeal.
603 2024 95 · fr (art. 78 al. 2 CPJA)
Driver's License Revocation Upheld for Driving with Defrosted Windows Due to Prior Suspension
Cited in the reasoning to confirm that the ground of inopportuneness could not be examined.
603 2024 37 · fr (art. 78 al. 2 CPJA)
Entrepreneur Repayment of COVID-19 Aid Reduced Based on Equality Principle
Cited to confirm that the ground of inopportuneness cannot be examined.
603 2023 59 · fr (art. 78 al. 2 let. c CPJA)
Appeal Regarding Moral Damages for Murder and Sexual Assault
Cited because the specific empowerment in Art. 10 para. 2 LALAVI allows the Cantonal Tribunal to review the expediency of the decision.