370.100
VRGLGA
CH-GR
CH-GR
Art. 26 Gesetz über die Verwaltungsrechtspflege (VRG) - Entscheid
Verfahren vor kantonalen Verwaltungsbehörden - Erstinstanzliches Verfahren
Art. 26 VRG · Entscheid
1. Die zuständige Verwaltungsbehörde erlässt einen Entscheid
a) von Amtes wegen, wenn dies gesetzlich vorgeschrieben oder zur Regelung eines Rechtsverhältnisses angebracht ist;
b) auf Antrag einer Partei, wenn diese ein schutzwürdiges Interesse an einem Entscheid hat.
2. Wird ein Entscheid beantragt und erachtet die Behörde die Voraussetzungen dafür als nicht gegeben, erlässt sie einen Nichteintretensentscheid. Dieser ist gleich wie eine Verfügung anfechtbar.
Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (6)
U 2023 50 · gr (Art. 26 Abs. 2 VRG)
Municipality Refusal to Rule on Path Maintenance Upheld Due to Res Judicata and Failure to Pursue Substantive Claim
Cited in the appellant's primary motion as the rule according to which the municipality should have issued a non-entry decision.
U 2023 85 · gr (Art. 26 Abs. 2 VRG)
Appeal Regarding Landscape Protection Zone Exclusion Denied Due to Lack of Current Interest and Abusive Conduct
Cited in the reasoning (E. 2.1) as the provision the appellants relied upon for demanding a decision, but the failure to issue a decision under this context is deemed insufficient for a substantive review.
R 2023 41 · gr (Art. 26 Abs. 1 lit. a VRG)
Appeal Dismissed Regarding Unlawful Structures in Agricultural Zone; Restoration Ordered
Cited in the administrative decision (implicitly, as the basis for the overall review and rejection of the application for structures b and f).
U 2023 47 · gr (Art. 26 Abs. 2 VRG)
School Lunch Fee Billing Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Appealable Decision
Mentioned to state that a decision to refuse entry into proceedings (Nichteintretensentscheid) is appealable like a formal decision, which serves to frame the discussion about the existence of a contestable object.
U 2013 35 · gr (Art. 26 Abs. 2 VRG)
Social Assistance Eligibility Based on Current Means Versus Presumed Income
Implied by the decision not to charge court fees due to the context of procedural misconduct by both parties, although not explicitly cited in the dispositive orders, this provision governs court fees.
A 2009 39 · gr (Art. 26 Abs. 2 VRG)
Tax Recourse Claim Between Heirs: Civil vs. Administrative Law Jurisdiction
This provision was cited to confirm that the contested decisions were non-admission decisions challengeable like formal rulings.