Appeal of Church Tax Collection Upheld; Case Dismissed on Withdrawal and Costs Awarded
Svizzera · Cantone Ticino (CH-TI)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAAn appeal was filed challenging a governmental body's decision that upheld a parochial council's resolution regarding the collection of a church tax for the years 1989/90. The case was removed from the docket because the parochial council subsequently withdrew its initial action due to intervening legislative changes, an action treated as a concession for the purposes of determining costs. Consequently, the court struck the appeal, waived fees, and ordered the original appellant to reimburse the opposing party a specified amount for legal costs.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IAArt. 273 vLT, art. 8 TOA, art. 12 TOA, art. 28 TOA, art. 3 PAmm, art. 18 PAmm; Appeal of Church Tax Collection Upheld; Case Dismissed on Withdrawal and Costs Awarded: The case was removed from the docket because the parochial council subsequently withdrew its initial action due to intervening legislative changes, an action treated as a concession for the purposes of determining costs. Consequently, the court struck the appeal, waived fees, and ordered the original appellant to reimburse the opposing party a specified amount for legal costs.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IAQuestioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator
Generato dall'IAAlthough listed in the cited articles, this provision is not explicitly used in the dispositive orders (1-3) except perhaps contextually, but the operative part relies on procedural grounds or cost allocation.
Although listed in the cited articles, this provision is not explicitly used in the dispositive orders (1-3) except perhaps contextually, but the operative part relies on procedural grounds or cost allocation.
Although listed in the cited articles, this provision is not explicitly used in the dispositive orders (1-3) except perhaps contextually, but the operative part relies on procedural grounds or cost allocation.
Although listed in the cited articles, this provision is not explicitly used in the dispositive orders (1-3) except perhaps contextually, but the operative part relies on procedural grounds or cost allocation.
Although listed in the cited articles, this provision is not explicitly used in the dispositive orders (1-3) except perhaps contextually, but the operative part relies on procedural grounds or cost allocation.
Although listed in the cited articles, this provision is not explicitly used in the dispositive orders (1-3) except perhaps contextually, but the operative part relies on procedural grounds or cost allocation.
Although listed in the cited articles, this provision is not explicitly used in the dispositive orders (1-3) except perhaps contextually, but the operative part relies on procedural grounds or cost allocation.
Although listed in the cited articles, this provision is not explicitly used in the dispositive orders (1-3) except perhaps contextually, but the operative part relies on procedural grounds or cost allocation.
Although listed in the cited articles, this provision is not explicitly used in the dispositive orders (1-3) except perhaps contextually, but the operative part relies on procedural grounds or cost allocation.
Although listed in the cited articles, this provision is not explicitly used in the dispositive orders (1-3) except perhaps contextually, but the operative part relies on procedural grounds or cost allocation.
This provision likely governs the costs imposed in order 3, as the court assigns the costs by referencing procedural laws, but without an explicit citation linked directly to the cost order, it is grouped with other cited laws.
This provision likely governs the imputation of costs in order 2, as the court refrains from levying fees/costs by referencing applicable procedural laws, but without an explicit citation linked directly to the cost order, it is grouped with other cited laws.
Testo completo
Incarto n. 52.95.00304 leo · Lugano 15 febbraio 1996 · In nome della Repubblica e Cantone del Ticino Il Tribunale cantonale amministrativo
composto dei giudici: · Lorenzo Anastasi, presidente, Raffaello Balerna, Stefano Bernasconi
segretario: · Leopoldo Crivelli
statuendo sul ricorso 3 maggio 1991 della
__________ rappr. da: avv. __________ contro
la decisione 9 aprile 1991 (n. 2912) del Consiglio di Stato che accoglie l'impugnativa presentata dalla __________;
avverso la risoluzione del Consiglio parrocchiale di __________ relativa al prelievo di un'imposta parrocchiale per gli anni 1989/90 per complessivi fr. 588.--;
vista la risposta inoltrata dalla parte resistente sopra menzionata;
preso atto della replica e della duplica;
preso atto della comunicazione 17 gennaio 1996 con cui la Parrocchia di __________, richiamate le modifiche legislative intervenute nel frattempo, dichiara di recedere dalle impugnative;
assimilata la desistenza alla soccombenza ai fini del giudizio sulle ripetibili;
visti gli art. 273 vLT; 8, 12, 28 TOA; 3, 18, 28, 31, 60, 61 PAmm,
dichiara e pronuncia:
1. Il ricorso è stralciato dai ruoli.
2. Non si prelevano né tasse, né spese.
3. La ricorrente rifonderà fr. 200.-- alla resistente a titolo di ripetibili.
4. Intimazione a: · __________
Per il Tribunale cantonale amministrativo
Il presidente Il segretario