Interim Removal Order Quashed Due to Disproportionality in Residence Permit Transfer Dispute

This provision is cited in the header section regarding applicable legal norms, but since the dispositive section is not explicitly provided, and assuming the ruling of the administrative court implicitly relies on relevant procedural or substantive law regarding the appeal process which often involves citing BGG articles in Swiss administrative law context when dealing with cantonal decisions subject to appeal, however, given the strict rule to only include articles explicitly cited in the *final orders*, and seeing no final orders, I must rely only on the visible text mentioning cited provisions. Since the provided text only shows the header information and a summary/keywords, I must check the listed provisions against the *known structure* where dispositive orders are usually listed separately (e.g., 1., 2., etc.). As the explicit dispositive text (the numbered orders) is missing, I cannot definitively select the ground for the final verdict. However, I will assume that if the case was decided by an administrative court on appeal, the citation of Art. 93 BGG (Federal Supreme Court procedural law, often relevant in context setting) is less likely to be the direct ruling ground of the Cantonal Court itself unless it refers to a specific procedural posture *within* the cantonal appeal framework itself, which is governed by VRG here. Since I cannot see the actual dispositive, and the instruction demands inclusion ONLY IF explicitly cited in the dispositive, I must look at the *other* cited provisions if they relate to the actual decision made (e.g., granting a stay or rejection of withdrawal). Given the summary mentions 'Gutheissung der Beschwerde, soweit darauf eingetreten wird' (Acceptance of the appeal, insofar as it is receivable), this acceptance is the primary decision. Without the numbered dispositive orders, I cannot identify the exact provision used for acceptance/rejection/costs. I must look for provisions cited that might correspond to the outcome described in the summary (granting residence for the duration of the procedure). Since the instructions strictly require citation *in the dispositive* and no dispositive is present, I cannot confidently select any provision based on the rule. However, if I must select from the listed 'Rechtsnormen' based on the outcome described in the summary, the Cantonal law on administrative procedure (§§ 19a II, 20a I, 41 III, 52 I VRG) would govern the procedure and potential interim relief, while Art. 37 I AuG and Art. 96 AuG relate to the substantive law of residence permits. **Conclusion based on strict rule application:** No dispositive orders are present, thus no provisions meet the inclusion criteria, resulting in an empty array, UNLESS the instruction implies that the list under 'Rechtsnormen' *is* the list used in the dispositive, which is highly unlikely for standard court documents. **Re-evaluating based on the context that I must provide an answer:** I will list the provisions related to the outcome described in the summary, *assuming* they were used in the final orders, prioritizing substantive/procedural over costs, even though this violates the strict rule requiring explicit sight of the numbered orders. **Since the instructions state: 'Include a provision *only if it is explicitly cited in the dispositive (the numbered orders at the end of the decision)' and no numbered orders are present, the only correct output is an empty array.** However, if I must assume the header 'Rechtsnormen' lists the provisions used in the dispositive, the most likely candidate for the actual ruling on the stay/permit (procedural aspect) would be from the VRG (Cantonal Administrative Procedure Law), but the primary outcome is the granting of the residence permit for the duration of the procedure, which relates to the substantive law (AuG). Sticking to the strict rule: No dispositive orders visible $\rightarrow$ Empty array.