935.31
LADB
CH-VD
Art. 49 Legge sugli esercizi pubblici e la mescita di bevande (LADB) - Chiusura temporanea [ 2 ]
Titolo IX
Art. 49 LADB - Chiusura temporanea [ 2 ] · Chiusura temporanea [ 2 ]
1. I titolari di una licenza possono chiudere il loro esercizio in alcuni giorni o durante determinate periodi. Sono tenuti a informare il comune con otto giorni di anticipo.
Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (7)
GE.1999.0123 · vd (art. 49 al. 1 LADB)
Café Closure Upheld Due to Lack of Valid Permit and Ineligible Substitute Operator
Cited because the proposed new patent holder did not meet the requirement of personally and actually managing the establishment, as stipulated by this article.
GE.1998.0113 · vd (art. 49 LADB)
Association v. Department of License Revocation
The violation of this article (personal operation rule) justified the withdrawal of the patent mentioned in Art. 78 LADB.
GE.1997.0192 · vd (art. 49 LADB)
Hotel License Revocation for Prostitution and Regulatory Violations
Cited as a ground in the administrative decision regarding the failure to personally manage the establishment.
GE.1995.0043 · vd (art. 49 LADB)
Café Operator Fails to Secure License Following Partner's Departure, Closure Upheld
This article concerning the personal management obligation of the license holder was central to the reasoning for upholding the closure order.
GE.1992.0042 · vd (Art. 49 LADB)
Café-Restaurant Partial Transfer of Business and Public House Law Compliance
The court found that the principle of personal and effective management required by this article was not respected by the appellants.
GE.1992.0114 · vd (art. 49 LADB)
Café License Refusal Upheld Due to Part-Time Management
The appeal was rejected because the applicant did not meet the requirement of personally and actually managing the establishment, which is the basis for the decision.
GE.1992.0041 · vd (Art. 49 LADB)
Department Refusal to Approve Separate Management of Pub and Restaurant
The decision order rejects the appeal by Hotex Management SA because the operation of the establishment did not comply with the requirement for personal and effective management by the patent holder.