155.21
VRPGLPJALGA
CH-BE
CH-BE
Art. 56 Loi sur la procédure et la juridiction administratives (LPJA) - Révision
Procédure administrative - Révision; rectification de décisions
Art. 56 Loi sur la procédure et la juridiction administratives (LPJA) · Révision
1. L'autorité administrative procède, d'office ou sur demande, à la révision d'une procédure passée en force
a. lorsqu'une procédure pénale a établi que la décision a été influencée par un crime ou un délit au détriment de la partie; si l'action pénale n'est pas possible, la preuve peut être administrée d'une autre manière;
b. lorsque la partie ou elle-même a connaissance subséquemment de faits importants ou trouve des preuves concluantes qu'elle n'avait pas pu invoquer dans la procédure précédente, les faits et moyens de preuve survenus après le prononcé de la décision en cause n'étant toutefois pas pris en considération;
c. lorsque des intérêts publics impérieux le justifient.
1a. L'autorité peut en tout temps réviser la procédure en faveur du destinataire de la décision.
2. Une réglementation légale différente de la révision de la procédure et de la modification de la décision est réservée.
3. Les demandes de révision doivent être présentées dans les 60 jours à compter de la découverte du motif de révision.
4. Si dix ans se sont écoulés depuis la notification de la décision, une modification de celle-ci n'est admise que pour les motifs relevant du 1er alinéa, lettre a.
Décisions judiciaires appliquant cette disposition (15)
100 2019 300 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 2 Bst. a VRPG)
Algerian National Deportation Appeal Admissibility Due to Untimely Filing
Cited to justify the decision being made by a five-member panel due to the fundamental legal question raised (E. 1.3).
2023 BKD 4857 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 1 Bst. c VRPG)
Educator Challenge to Post-Hoc Diploma Requirement Upheld on Public Interest Grounds
This provision was cited as the specific ground justifying the reopening of the previously closed administrative procedure to impose the condition.
2018 JGK 4175 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 1 Bst. b VRPG)
Property Tax Assessment Reopening Appeal Dismissed Due to Lack of Compelling Public Interest
The Directorate denied the reopening of the procedure because the ground of subsequently discovered facts or evidence was not met.
2018 JGK 4175 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 1 Bst. c VRPG)
Property Tax Assessment Reopening Appeal Dismissed Due to Lack of Compelling Public Interest
The Directorate denied the reopening of the procedure because the financial support provided by the Canton did not constitute a compelling public interest justifying reopening.
2020 GSI 490 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 3 VRPG)
Municipality Appeal of Family Childcare Cost Allocation Correction Deadlines
The court determined that the procedural deadline (60-day forfeiture period) for the administrative authority to reopen proceedings ex officio for the years 2008 to 2013 was not met.
2020 GSI 490 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 4 VRPG)
Municipality Appeal of Family Childcare Cost Allocation Correction Deadlines
The court found that the reopening of proceedings for the 2008 accounting year was barred by the absolute 10-year forfeiture period, as the corrective decision was issued too late.
120 2020 50 · be (Art. 56 VRPG)
Appeal Regarding Unapproved Farmhouse Dormer Extension and Enforcement Costs
Cited in the reasoning regarding the conditions under which an authority can revisit a final decision (res iudicata).
100 2018 312 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 1 Bst. b VRPG)
Physician's Appeal Against License Revocation Rejection Due to Failure to Manage Official Correspondence Upheld
The core legal basis examined for the request for review (Wiederaufnahme) of the prior proceedings based on newly discovered facts, although the request under this article was ultimately denied in E. 3.4 and Order 1.
100 2018 312 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 1 Satz 2 VRPG)
Physician's Appeal Against License Revocation Rejection Due to Failure to Manage Official Correspondence Upheld
The legal basis examined for discretionary review (Wiederaufnahme) by the authority, although the court found no error in its non-application in Order 1.
100 2016 235 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 1 Bst. a VRPG)
Municipality v. Cantonal Directorate on Reopening Social Welfare Fund Equalization Due to Criminal Conviction
This provision was the primary legal basis found applicable for the reopening of the proceedings concerning the financial corrections, as special regulations in the FILAG were deemed not to exclude its application.
100 2016 235 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 1 VRPG)
Municipality v. Cantonal Directorate on Reopening Social Welfare Fund Equalization Due to Criminal Conviction
This general provision on the reopening of proceedings served as the ultimate legal basis governing the substantive review, after determining that the FILAG provisions did not govern conclusively.
100 2018 257 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 1 Bst. b VRPG)
Municipality v. Taxpayer Regarding Retroactive Property Tax Reassessment Based on Subsequent Official Valuation
The appeal was dismissed based on the provision allowing the municipality to reopen a finalized proceeding due to newly discovered facts.
2018 228 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 1 Satz 2 VRPG)
Practitioner's Appeal of License Revocation Dismissed Due to Lack of Due Diligence in Managing Professional Correspondence
The appeal was dismissed because there was no ground for reopening the decision under this provision.
100 2014 99 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 1 Bst. b VRPG)
Student v. Educational Institution on Grade Reopening and Diploma Eligibility
Cited in the reasoning (E. 2.3, 3.1, 4.4, 5.2) to discuss the conditions under which the authority could revisit a final administrative decision based on newly discovered facts or evidence, although ultimately found not to be met for the specific facts of the case.
100 2014 99 · be (Art. 56 Abs. 1 Bst. c VRPG)
Student v. Educational Institution on Grade Reopening and Diploma Eligibility
Cited in the reasoning (E. 3.1, 5.1) to discuss the condition for reopening based on compelling public interests, although ultimately found not to be met.