784.11
TUGLATCLET
CH
CH
Art. 4 Bundesgesetz vom 30. April 1997 über die Organisation der Telekommunikationsunternehmung des Bundes (TUG) - Anwendbares Recht
TUG
Art. 4 TUG · Anwendbares Recht
Soweit dieses Gesetz nichts anderes bestimmt, gelten für die Unternehmung die aktienrechtlichen Vorschriften des Obligationenrechts .
Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (28)
AC.2025.0133 · vd (art. 4 al. 3 let. a LATC)
Agricultural Building Permit Denial for Remote Hangar Location
Cited in the reasoning section regarding the DGTL's competence to issue special authorization, but not explicitly cited in the dispositive orders I-V.
AC.2022.0382 · vd (art. 4 al. 3 let. a LATC)
Appeal Regarding Building Permit for Mobile Phone Site Modification and 5G Radiation Limits
This provision was cited by the DGTL as a basis for granting the special authorization derogating from the zone designation, which the court confirmed.
AC.2021.0229 · vd (art. 4 LATC)
Property Owner v. Municipality: Validity of Building Permit Rejection After Subsidiary Competence Period
This article was mentioned by the Municipality of Nyon in its submissions regarding the deadline given to the municipality.
AC.2021.0229 · vd (art. 4 al. 2 LATC)
Property Owner v. Municipality: Validity of Building Permit Rejection After Subsidiary Competence Period
This article was cited in the reasoning to contextualize Art. 114 LATC regarding the department's role in enforcing land use laws.
AC.2019.0075 · vd (Art. 4 al. 2 LATC)
Territorial Development Department v. Municipality of Building Permit Annulment
Cited to establish the DTE's standing to appeal in connection with Art. 75 let. b LPA-VD.
AC.2017.0237 · vd (art. 4 al. 2 LATC)
Territorial Department v. Municipality on Construction Permit Validity Based on Former Zoning Law
Cited in the reasoning to establish the Department's competence regarding territorial planning.
AC.2015.0269 · vd (Art. 4 LATC)
Apartment Permit Refusal Upheld Based on Aesthetic Harmony with Ancient Constructions
Cited in the reasoning regarding the principle of proportionality, stating that the measure less restrictive of the interests involved must be chosen.
AC.2013.0202 · vd (art. 4 LATC)
Usufructuary Liability for Fire Safety Violations by Squatters
Cited in the reasoning regarding the proportionality principle applied to the required measures, although the final order modifies the deadline based on other facts.
AC.2012.0062 · vd (art. 4 LATC)
Property Owner v. Municipality Regarding Building Permit and Housing Quota in Historic Center
Cited in the reasoning (Considerant 1.f) regarding the principle that the least intrusive measure should be applied, but not explicitly cited in the dispositive orders (I-IV).
AC.2007.0103 · vd (art. 4 LATC)
Landowners' Appeal and Municipal Development Plan Overturned Due to Maintenance Obligations
Cited in the reasoning (Considerant 4e and 5b) regarding the principle of proportionality, but not explicitly in the dispositive.
AC.2007.0008 · vd (Art. 4 LATC)
Property Owners v. Municipal Land Readjustment Procedures
Mentioned in the reasoning to support the principle of the right to be heard.
AC.2007.0200 · vd (Art. 4 LATC)
Property Owners Challenge Regional Road Project Approval
The court cited this article when evaluating the proportionality of the road planning measure, stating that the authority must choose the measure that least harms the interested parties.
AC.2004.0247 · vd (Art. 4 LATC)
Landowners v. Municipality (Zone Classification and Landscape Protection)
Cited in the context of proportionality review, which is part of the assessment leading to the partial admission of the appeals.
AC.2005.0212 · vd (art. 4 LATC)
Property Owners v. Municipality Zoning Challenge
Cited in relation to the principle of proportionality in choosing protection measures, relevant to the overall assessment in the reasoning.
AC.2000.0059 · vd (Art. 4 LATC)
Construction Permit Refusal Upheld for Deviation from Traditional Aesthetic Requirements
This article concerning the principle of proportionality was mentioned in the reasoning (section 5) supporting the conclusion against violation of proportionality.