Art. 61 Bundesgesetz vom 20. Juni 1930 über die Enteignung (EntG)

10.2009.3 · ti (Art. 61 cpv. 1 let. a Lespr)

Expropriation Retrocession Claim Denied Due to Satisfied Public Use Objective

The court rejected the request for retrocession because the land was used in accordance with the purpose for which it was expropriated.

10.2009.3 · ti (Art. 61 cpv. 1 let. c Lespr)

Expropriation Retrocession Claim Denied Due to Satisfied Public Use Objective

The court rejected the request for retrocession because the land was not alienated or used for a purpose other than that for which it was expropriated.

10.2009.12 · ti (art. 61 cpv. 1 let. a Lespr)

Heir Seeks Restitution of Expropriated Land Due to Zoning Change; Claim Rejected as Time-Barred and Public Use Maintained

The court implicitly analyzed this provision to determine the primary legal basis for the claim, although ultimately finding it prescribed.

10.2009.12 · ti (art. 61 cpv. 1 let. c Lespr)

Heir Seeks Restitution of Expropriated Land Due to Zoning Change; Claim Rejected as Time-Barred and Public Use Maintained

The court examined this provision as an alternative basis for the claim, ultimately finding the requirements for retrocession not met.

10.2006.3 · ti (art. 61 cpv. 1 let. c Lespr.)

Restitution Denied Due to Change in Public Purpose Zoning

The court rejected the request for retrocession based on this article, as the initial expropriation purpose was not completely abandoned.

10.2004.91.1 · ti (art. 61 Lespr.)

Landowner Challenge to Lakeside Property Expropriation Success Due to Procedural Defects

The inadequacy of the documentation was further highlighted by the inability of the expropriated parties to knowingly exercise their rights, including the right to request retrocession should the land's purpose change, which is governed by this article (Para 5.2).

10.2006.7.1 · ti (art. 61 Lespr.)

Expropriation Annulled Due to Formal Defects in Ownership Identification and Project Documentation

This article regarding the right to claim retrocession was cited in the reasoning to support the requirement for a complete project, which formed part of the grounds for annulment in order 1.

50.1998.7 · ti (Art. 61 Lespr)

Heirs' Reversion Claim for Abandoned Expropriated Land

Cited in the preamble as the main legal basis regarding the right to retrocession, which the court partially granted by ordering a new review.

50.1998.7 · ti (Art. 61 Lespr)

Heirs' Reversion Claim for Abandoned Expropriated Land

Cited in the reasoning section (4.1) and implicitly through the explicit mention in the final orders' preamble, concerning the right to retrocession which was central to the appeal.

50.1999.4 · ti (Art. 61 Lespr)

Appeal Regarding Denial of Retrocession for Expropriated Property Used for Torrent Channeling

The appeal was rejected because the legal prerequisites for the requested restitution under this article were not met.

50.1995.15 · ti (art. 61 e segg. Lespr)

Property Owners' Expropriation Appeal Moot Due to Settlement Agreement

Cited in point 9 of the private agreement ('convenzione'), but not in the final orders of the court.

50.1995.18 · ti (art. 61 cpv. 3 Lespr)

Municipality v. Heirs: Timeliness of Expropriation Reversion Claim Based on Planning Regulation Deadline

This article was used to determine that the prescription term for the right to retrocession had not yet expired when the action was filed.

10.2004.91 · ti (art. 61 Lespr.)

Municipality Expropriation Annulled Due to Procedural Defects in Land Seizure

This article concerning the risk of retrocession when the land is not used for the intended purpose was mentioned to justify the need for a complete project description.

10.2006.3 · ti (art. 61 cpv. 1 let. c Lespr.)

Expropriation Retrocession Denial Based on Persistent Public Purpose Zoning

This article is the basis for the applicants' claim for retrocession, which the Tribunal ultimately rejected.

10.2009.12 · ti (art. 61 cpv. 1 let. c Lespr)

Expropriation Retrocession Denial Due to Time-Bar and Continued Public Use Justification

This article provided the legal basis for the claim for restitution which was ultimately rejected.