455
TSCHGLPALPAN
CH
CH
Art. 16 Tierschutzgesetz (TSchG)
TSchG; 2. Kapitel: Umgang mit Tieren
Art. 16 TSchG
Schmerzverursachende Eingriffe dürfen nur unter allgemeiner oder örtlicher Schmerzausschaltung von einer fachkundigen Person vorgenommen werden. Der Bundesrat bestimmt die Ausnahmen. Er bestimmt, welche Personen als fachkundig gelten. Vorbehalten bleiben die Bestimmungen dieses Gesetzes über Tierversuche.
Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (306)
A/3749/2024 · ge (art. 16 al. 1 LPA)
Appeal Inadmissible Due to Untimely Filing
Cited in the reasoning regarding the imperative nature of statutory deadlines, though not directly in the final order, it's related to the procedural framework reviewed (inadmissibility context).
A/3557/2023 · ge (Art. 16 al. 2 LPA)
Timely Payment of Cost Advance in Administrative Appeal
The court found that the lower court's refusal to grant a brief extension to the payment deadline constituted an arbitrary application of this procedural provision.
A/651/2025 · ge (art. 16 al. 3 LPA)
Reinstatement of Deadline for Fee Payment Denied Due to Lack of Force Majeure
Although cited in the reasoning regarding the conditions for restitution, this provision is not explicitly cited in the dispositive orders.
A/819/2024 · ge (art. 16 LPA)
Son's Residence Permit Appeal Barred by Asylum Procedure Exclusivity
Mentioned in the context of the subsidiary request for restitution of the deadline, although the court ultimately found it unnecessary to examine due to the lack of a 'manifest' right.
A/3975/2024 · ge (Art. 16 al. 1 LPA)
Family Benefit Repayment Time-Barred Opposition and Remission Inquiry
Cited regarding the imperative nature of appeal deadlines and the exception of force majeure.
A/2598/2024 · ge (art. 16 al. 3 LPA)
Taxpayers' Appeal of Inadmissibility Due to Unpaid Cost Advance Rejected Despite Relying on Administrative Assurance
The court used this article to declare the request for reinstatement of the time limit admissible.
A/3400/2024 · ge (Art. 16 al. 1 LPA)
Appeal Inadmissible Due to Late Payment of Costs Despite Financial Hardship Claim
Cited by analogy in the reasoning to discuss the concept of force majeure concerning the failure to pay the advance on costs, although the final decision relies on Art. 86 al. 2 LPA for inadmissibility.
A/1894/2024 · ge (art. 16 al. 3 LPA)
Appeal on Dismissal for Unpaid Cost Advance Refusing Restitutio in Integrum
This provision governs the restitution of a missed procedural deadline, which was the subject of the implicit argument by the appellant concerning the refusal to grant relief regarding the missed advance fee payment deadline.
A/1757/2024 · ge (Art. 16 al. 1 LPA)
Appellant Denied Retroactive Health Subsidies Due to Untimely Submission Proof
Cited in the reasoning section to affirm that legal deadlines, such as the subsidy filing deadline, cannot generally be extended.
A/3948/2023 · ge (Art. 16 al. 1 LPA)
Taxi Driver Late Renewal Application Good Faith Reinstatement
Cited in the reasoning section (3.2) regarding the inability to extend legal deadlines, but not explicitly cited in the operative section (the 'dispositive').
A/3497/2024 · ge (art. 16 al. 1 LPA)
Appeal Inadmissible Due to Untimely Filing
This provision, concerning the non-suspendibility of deadlines, is cited in the reasoning (points 5 and 8) but not in the dispositive orders.
A/510/2024 · ge (Art. 16 al. 1 LPA)
Appeal Inadmissibility Due to Untimely Filing
Cited as the cantonal equivalent confirming that legal deadlines cannot be extended.
A/510/2024 · ge (Art. 16 al. 3 LPA)
Appeal Inadmissibility Due to Untimely Filing
Cited as the cantonal equivalent regarding the restoration of time limits due to excusable impediment.
A/1271/2024 · ge (art. 16 al. 1 2ephr. LPA)
Inmate's Untimely Appeal of Solitary Confinement Inadmissible
Cited in the context of reserving cases of force majeure, relevant because the court rejected the appellant's justifications under this notion.
A/2154/2024 · ge (art. 16 al. 2 LPA)
Administrative Court Annuls Dismissal for Unpaid Costs After Timely Extension Request Denied
The court found that the refusal to grant an extension of time constituted an arbitrary application of this provision.