801.100 KRGLPTC

CH-GR

Art. 62 Legge sulla pianificazione territoriale del Cantone dei Grigioni (LPTC) - Finanziamento 1. Obbligo dei tributi

Pianificazione locale - Urbanizzazione

Apri la fonte ufficiale Atto completo (137 Articoli) Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Art. 62 LPTC · Finanziamento 1. Obbligo dei tributi

1. I comuni coprono i loro esborsi secondo l'articolo 60 mediante la riscossione di tributi di urbanizzazione. Essi partecipano alle spese nella misura in cui sussistono un interesse pubblico agli impianti o circostanze particolari.

2. Gli impianti per il traffico vengono finanziati mediante la riscossione di contributi, gli impianti di approvvigionamento e di smaltimento mediante contributi, rispettivamente tasse. I comuni determinano quali impianti di approvvigionamento e di smaltimento vengono finanziati mediante contributi e quali mediante tasse.

3. I tributi di urbanizzazione vanno di principio pagati dalle persone che traggono beneficio economico particolare dagli impianti pubblici o che li hanno utilizzati o li potrebbero utilizzare. La Sovrastanza comunale può esigere un'adeguata garanzia, qualora il pagamento di un tributo prevedibile risulti minacciato.

4. Per il finanziamento di impianti di urbanizzazione, eseguiti sulla base della legislazione sulle bonifiche fondiarie, valgono esclusivamente le disposizioni di detta legislazione.

← Art. 61 LPTC Legge sulla pianificazione territoriale del Cantone dei Grigioni (LPTC) - Oggetto Art. 63 LPTC →

Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (23)

A 2024 15 · gr (Art. 62 Abs. 3 Satz 1 KRG)

Road Renovation Contribution Perimeter Inclusion Dispute

Cited in the reasoning section in relation to the finding that the appellants could utilize the D._____ road.

A 2024 14 · gr (Art. 62 Abs. 3 Satz 1 KRG)

Appeal Dismissed Regarding Road Renovation Contribution Assessment Inclusion

Cited as the legal basis establishing that a potential use as an alternative access route is sufficient for including the parcel in the contribution area.

A 2020 27 · gr (Art. 62 Abs. 3 KRG)

Property Owners v. Municipality (Road Renovation Cost Allocation)

This article establishes the principle that development costs are paid by those who derive an economic benefit, forming the basis for the cost allocation between the municipality (public interest) and the landowners (private interest).

R 2019 18 · gr (Art. 62 Abs. 1 KRG)

Challenge to Road Project Approval and Expropriation Dismissed

Cited by the municipal opponent to justify not imposing costs on the appellants for the new access route.

R 2019 19 · gr (Art. 62 Abs. 1 KRG)

Property Owners v. Canton: Road Construction Expropriation Upheld

Cited by the respondent municipality to justify that no costs would be imposed on the appellants for the new access.

A 2017 56 · gr (Art. 62 Abs. 2 KRG)

Property Owner v. Municipality: Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

Cited in the context of financing infrastructure, distinguishing between contributions and fees.

A 2013 39 · gr (Art. 62 KRG)

Road Renovation Contribution Area and Cost Allocation Dispute

Basis for finding that the appeal regarding the inclusion of parcel 20125 was justified, as it draws an economic special advantage from the work.

V 2010 3 · gr (Art. 62 KRG)

Municipal Credit Approval Challenge Based on Alleged Voter Misinformation Regarding Special Assessments

Cited in the reasoning in conjunction with Art. 63 KRG regarding the possibility of initiating contribution proceedings.

PVG 2010 22 · gr (Art. 62 Abs. 2 in Verbindung mit Art. 63 Abs. 1 KRG)

Challenge to Cost Distribution in Infrastructure Project Upheld

Cited as the legal basis for levying contributions to cover the costs of creating, changing, and renewing development facilities.

PVG 2010 22 · gr (Art. 62 Abs. 3 KRG)

Challenge to Cost Distribution in Infrastructure Project Upheld

The general principle that development fees must be paid by those who benefit from the facilities.

PVG 2010 22 · gr (Art. 62 ff. KRG)

Challenge to Cost Distribution in Infrastructure Project Upheld

The appeal was dismissed because the cost apportionment, based on Art. 62 ff. KRG, was deemed appropriate for the landowners concerned.

A 2009 58 · gr (Art. 62 Abs. 2 KRG)

Landowner Appeals of Municipal Development Cost Allocation Upheld

Cited in the reasoning regarding the legal basis for levying contributions to cover costs for the creation, alteration, and renewal of development facilities.

A 2008 75 · gr (Art. 62 KRG)

Property Owners Appeal Road Improvement Cost Apportionment Due to Power Line Relocation

Cited in the reasoning (Erwägung 3) as the basis for municipalities covering their expenses for infrastructure through contribution levies.

PVG 2008 23 · gr (Art. 64 Abs. 1 E-KRG (heute: Art. 62 Abs. 1 KRG))

Development Contribution Calculation Based on Net Costs After Subsidies

Cited in the legislative materials to support the interpretation that the financial provisions apply generally to planning law development measures.

A 2008 17 · gr (Art. 62 Abs. 1 KRG)

Consolidated Appeals on Municipal Road Renovation Fee Allocation

Cited in the reasoning to establish the municipality's authority and obligation to charge private parties for road renewal costs based on their special advantage.