842
WFGLOGLPRA
CH
CH
Art. 29 Bundesgesetz vom 21. März 2003 über die Förderung von preisgünstigem Wohnraum (WFG) - Überprüfung der Voraussetzungen für die Zinsvergünstigung
WFG
Art. 29 WFG · Überprüfung der Voraussetzungen für die Zinsvergünstigung
Die zuständigen Stellen überprüfen die Einhaltung der massgebenden Einkommens-, Vermögens- und Belegungsvorschriften.
Die Eigentümerinnen und Eigentümer haben ihnen die entsprechenden Auskünfte zu erteilen.
Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (7)
32.2009.157 · ti (art. 29 cpv. 2 LOG)
Appeal Regarding Disability Pension Remand for Further Medical Assessment
This provision is not explicitly cited in the operative part (orders 1, 2, 3), which only relates to procedure, costs, and appeal rights.
10.2003.322 · ti (art. 29 LOG)
Prosecutor v. Accused (Jurisdictional Challenge Regarding Narcotics Act Violations)
This article was cited in the reasoning to define the jurisdiction of the Criminal Preliminary Court, which justified the finding of incompetence.
10.2002.205 · ti (art. 29 cpv. 1 LOG)
Criminal Court Declines Jurisdiction Over Aggregate Narcotics Sentence Exceeding Limit
The court declared its incompetence based on the limits of the jurisdiction set out in this article regarding the maximum sentence.
10.2002.251 · ti (art. 29 LOG cpv. 1)
Public Prosecutor Decrees vs. Penal Court Jurisdiction
The court determined its own lack of jurisdiction based on this article, which regulates the competence of the Petty Criminal Court.
10.2002.205 · ti (art. 29 LOG)
Prosecutor vs. Drug Infringement Jurisdiction Dispute
Cited to determine the procedural competence of the criminal district court, leading to the finding of incompetency.
10.2003.322 · ti (art. 29 LOG)
Prosecutor v. Defendant (Narcotics Violations and Jurisdictional Conflict)
Cited in the reasoning to establish the court's lack of competence based on the maximum penalty proposed.
10.2003.322 · ti (art. 29 LOG cpv. 1)
Prosecutor v. Defendant (Narcotics Violations and Jurisdictional Conflict)
Cited in the reasoning to establish the court's lack of competence based on the maximum penalty proposed.