700
EGUSG
CH-LU
CH-LU
§ 38 Einführungsgesetz zum Bundesgesetz über den Umweltschutz (EGUSG) - Finanzierung
Katastrophenschutz
§ 38 EGUSG · Finanzierung
1. Die Kosten für Ausrüstung, Ausbildung und Unterhalt der kantonalen Stützpunkte der ABC-Wehren trägt der Kanton.
2. Die Kosten für die Erstausrüstung der Ölwehren der Ortsfeuerwehren trägt der Kanton. Die Ausbildung und den Unterhalt bei Ölwehren und die Ausbildung bei Chemie- und Strahlenwehren der Ortsfeuerwehren tragen die Gemeinden.
Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (14)
90.2021.37 · ti (art. 38*a* LPT)
Planning Authority v. Canton Regarding Historical Settlements Zone Approval and Transitional Federal Law
The appeal was granted because the Historical Settlement Zone (IS) could no longer be approved due to the expiry of the deadline set by this provision for adapting cantonal master plans.
TVR.2020.Nr.14 · tg (Art. 38 a RPG)
Application of Newly Approved Regional Plan to Pending Special Use Permit Review
Cited in connection with the analysis justifying the immediate application of the new cantonal master plan (KRP 2017) during the appeal procedure, based on federal jurisprudence regarding land-use planning goals.
90.2017.15 · ti (art. 38à LPT)
Property Owners' Appeal of Zoning Revision Dismissed Due to Transitional Land Use Act Compliance
This provision on transitional law explains why the expansion of the building zone requested by the appellants was excluded due to the lack of a corresponding dezonation.
90.2016.11 · ti (art. 38*a* LPT)
State Council Zoning Resolution Approval Challenge Dismissed
The core issue revolves around the application of transitional rules for the revised Federal Spatial Planning Act (LPT), which justifies the rejection of the appeal.
90.2015.115 · ti (art. 38 a cpv. 2 LPT)
Municipality v. State Resolution on Land-Use Plan Approval and Zoning Requirements
The main reason for rejecting the appeal regarding the zoning expansion is the violation of this provision, which prohibits increasing the total surface area of building zones during the transition period without compensation.
90.2015.123 · ti (art. 38*a* LPT)
Property Owners v. State Council (Land Rezoning Dispute)
Basis for rejecting the appeal because the zoning revision did not address the requirement for compensation/rezoning mandated by this transitional rule upon entry into force of the LPT revision.
90.2015.125 · ti (art. 38à LPT)
Property Owner v. State Council Regarding Zoning Classification Rejection
The appeal was rejected because the revision of the land use plan involved an expansion of the buildable area contrary to this provision, which regulates the transitional period for adapting to the revised Federal Law on Spatial Planning.
AC.2016.0129 · vd (art. 38 al. 2 LAT)
Municipality v. Environmental Department Zoning Appeal
This article on compensation for new building zones was discussed, but not explicitly cited in the final orders.
TVR.2016.Nr.17 · tg (Art. 38 a RPG)
Zoning Objection Rights and Moratorium Application in Rezoning Procedures
The application of the building moratorium, which forms the main ground for upholding the appeal in point 3 of the dispositive.
90.2015.31 · ti (art. 38à cpv. 2 LPT)
Zoning Amendment Denial Upheld Due to Non-Compliance with Transitional Planning Law
The appeal was rejected because the zoning variation constituted an expansion of the buildable area contrary to this provision.
TVR.2014.Nr.19 · tg (Art. 38 a RPG)
Piecemeal Rezoning Invalid Due to Impending Comprehensive Land Use Plan Revision
Cited in the header, but not explicitly used in the dispositive orders (which are missing, but based on context, the decision is to uphold the appeal, which hinges on Art. 2 RPG).
52.2000.239 · ti (art. 38 LPT)
Foundation v. State Council (Building Permit Annulment for Parking and Access Violations)
Cited in the final list, presumably relating to the general scope of building permit requirements.
90.2015.31 · ti (Art. 38à LPT)
Municipal Master Plan Zoning Reallocation Challenge Upheld
The appeal was rejected because the zoning change violated this provision regarding the requirement for compensation for expanding building zones during the transitional period.
90.2017.15 · ti (art. 38à LPT)
Cantonal Planning Revision Classification Dispute
Cited in the reasoning (consid. 5.1) as the reason why the appeal must be rejected due to the lack of corresponding dezonation, although this reason supports the dismissal mentioned in order 1.