172.021 VWVGPA

CH

Art. 66 Bundesgesetz vom 20. Dezember 1968 über das Verwaltungsverfahren (VwVG)

VwVG; Dritter Abschnitt: Das Beschwerdeverfahren im Allgemeinen; K. Revision; I. Gründe

Originalquelle öffnen Gesamter Erlass (93 Artikel) Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Art. 66 VwVG

Die Beschwerdeinstanz zieht ihren Entscheid von Amtes wegen oder auf Begehren einer Partei in Revision, wenn ihn ein Verbrechen oder Vergehen beeinflusst hat.

Ausserdem zieht sie ihn auf Begehren einer Partei in Revision, wenn: a. die Partei neue erhebliche Tatsachen oder Beweismittel vorbringt; b. die Partei nachweist, dass die Beschwerdeinstanz aktenkundige erhebliche Tatsachen oder bestimmte Begehren übersehen hat; c. die Partei nachweist, dass die Beschwerdeinstanz die Bestimmungen der Artikel 10, 59 oder 76 über den Ausstand, der Artikel 26–28 über die Akteneinsicht oder der Artikel 29–33 über das rechtliche Gehör verletzt hat; oder d. der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in einem endgültigen Urteil festgestellt hat, dass die Konvention vom 4. November 1950 zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten (EMRK) oder die Protokolle dazu verletzt worden sind, oder den Fall durch eine gütliche Einigung (Art. 39 EMRK) abgeschlossen hat, sofern eine Entschädigung nicht geeignet ist, die Folgen der Verletzung auszugleichen, und die Revision notwendig ist, um die Verletzung zu beseitigen.

Gründe im Sinne von Absatz 2 Buchstaben a–c gelten nicht als Revisionsgründe, wenn die Partei sie im Rahmen des Verfahrens, das dem Beschwerdeentscheid voranging, oder auf dem Wege einer Beschwerde, die ihr gegen den Beschwerdeentscheid zustand, geltend machen konnte.

← Art. 65 VwVG Bundesgesetz vom 20. Dezember 1968 über das Verwaltungsverfahren (VwVG) Art. 67 VwVG →

Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (509)

VPB 150000263 (Art. 66 Abs. 2 Bst. a und b VwVG)

Federal Council Confirms Vote Results, Rejects Reconsideration Requests

Cited as grounds for revision, potentially applicable by analogy to the case concerning the reconsideration of a referendum result.

JAAC 69.124 (Art. 66 VwVG)

Employee's Early Retirement Decision Upheld

Cited as the basis for revision grounds, which the court determined were not present.

JAAC 68.149 (Art. 66 al. 2 let. b PA)

Applicant's Assumption of Tacit Extension Leads to Appeal Dismissal

The provision is cited in the preamble and implicitly underlies the decision to not enter into the revision request after the initial application was dismissed for non-payment of costs.

JAAC 66.85 (Art. 66 Abs. 2 Bst. a VwVG)

Second Revision Admissible Only for Procedural Errors, Not Merits Re-argument

Cited as the ground for re-examining new facts or evidence in a second revision request.

JAAC 66.85 (Art. 66 Abs. 2 Bst. b VwVG)

Second Revision Admissible Only for Procedural Errors, Not Merits Re-argument

Cited as a potential ground for revision concerning procedural defects in the revision decision.

JAAC 66.85 (Art. 66 Abs. 2 Bst. c VwVG)

Second Revision Admissible Only for Procedural Errors, Not Merits Re-argument

Cited as a potential ground for revision concerning procedural defects in the revision decision.

JAAC 65.7 (Art. 66 Abs. 3 VwVG)

Mootness of Asylum Reconsideration Request Due to Prior Expulsion

Applied analogously to the re-examination procedure, stating that grounds that could have been raised in the ordinary appeal procedure cannot be invoked as grounds for re-examination.

JAAC 64.99 (Art. 66 Abs. 3 VwVG)

Reconsideration of Refugee Status Denied Due to Delay and Lack of Good Faith

Cited as the legal basis for the principle that a request for reconsideration cannot be based on grounds that could have been raised in an ordinary appeal.

JAAC 64.98 (Art. 66 cpv. 2 lett. b PA)

Asylum Appeal Revision Granted Due to Unconsidered Marriage Certificate

This provision was used to admit the request for revision because a decisive piece of evidence that should have been included in the appeal file was not considered.

JAAC 64.7 (Art. 66 cpv. 2 lett. b PA)

Asylum Revision Denied for Failure to Prove Factual Misperception and Procedural Defects Not Raised in Ordinary Appeal

Cited as a ground for revision concerning the omission of relevant facts.

JAAC 64.7 (Art. 66 cpv. 2 lett. c PA)

Asylum Revision Denied for Failure to Prove Factual Misperception and Procedural Defects Not Raised in Ordinary Appeal

Cited as a ground for revision concerning the violation of the right to be heard.

JAAC 63.11 (Art. 66 Abs. 1 Bst. b VwVG)

Swiss Asylum Seeker's Case: CAT Decision vs. National Law

The court rejected the request for revision based on this provision because the Committee against Torture's decision does not constitute a ground for revision under this article.

JAAC 63.11 (Art. 66 Abs. 2 Bst. a VwVG)

Swiss Asylum Seeker's Case: CAT Decision vs. National Law

The court found that the new facts and evidence presented did not meet the requirements for re-evaluation under this provision.

B-3636/2025 (art. 66 al. 1 PA)

Osteopathy Diploma Recognition: Professional Experience Reconsideration

Cited analogously as a ground for revision when a party presents new important facts or new evidence that existed at the time of the original decision but were not yet known.

E-9006/2025 (art. 66 PA)

Asylum seeker fails to prove risk of persecution or lack of protection in Turkey.

Cited as a potential ground for re-examination.