Art. 68 Gesetz über die Verwaltungsrechtspflege (VRP) - Stellungnahme zum Beweisergebnis

IV.2017.227 · sg (Art. 68 VRP)

Disability Pension Appeal Dismissed Despite Worsening Psychological Condition

Not explicitly cited in the final orders 1-3, but implied by the context of cost assessment in previous paragraphs (although the exact article for the Fr. 600 fee is Art. 69 IVG and Art. 69 VRP mentioned in para 6.1, not Art. 68).

B.2018.48 · sg (Art. 68 VRP)

Foster Care Payments Reduction Upheld Against Private Agreement

Implicitly applied, as point 2 orders the costs of the appeal procedure to be borne by the appellant, consistent with the administrative procedure law.

B.2016.224 · sg (Art. 68 VRP)

Municipality v. Building Permit Appeal Regarding Railing on Garage Roof

Implied by the structure, but not explicitly cited in the dispositive, only the outcome (costs imposed/waived) is stated.

B.2016.224 · sg (Art. 68 VRP (implicitly governing costs))

Municipality v. Building Permit Appeal Regarding Railing on Garage Roof

Although the article number for costs (Art. 68 VRP) is not explicitly written in the dispositive, the dispositive itself orders costs and waives their collection (Order 2 and 3), which mandates inclusion of the cost provision if cited. Since no explicit cost article is cited, only the procedural/substantive articles that determine the outcome are included. However, based strictly on the rule: 'If the dispositive imposes costs or rules on legal aid, include the article cited', and given that no *cited* article directly governs the costs *in the dispositive*, we rely only on explicitly cited provisions. No explicit cost/legal aid provision is cited in Orders 1, 2, or 3.

B.2018.207 · sg (Art. 68 al. 2 VRP)

Mandatory Driving License Withdrawal Upheld Due to Alcohol Dependency Findings

This article, typically governing costs in the context of the VRP (sGS 951.1), is implicitly referenced by the cost order (Order 2 and 3) under the cantonal framework, though 'Art. 66 al. 1 LTF' is often used by analogy or as a general reference for costs in this jurisdiction. Since no specific cost article from VRP is explicitly cited in the dispositive, and the outcome is a cost ruling, relevant cost provisions must be captured. Given the dispositive only cites costs generally via Order 2 and 3, and no other explicit procedural/substantive articles are present in the dispositive aside from the main rejection, the cost provisions cited in the operative part are included.

B.2017.249 · sg (Art. 68 Abs. 1 VRP)

Special Needs Placement Upheld Over Parental Preference

This provision determines the non-compensation of extrajudicial costs in the dispositive (Order 3).

B.2016.246 · sg (Art. 68 Abs. 1 VRP)

Revocation of Settlement Permit Based on Criminal Convictions Upheld

Implicitly relates to non-reimbursement of extra-judicial costs, but not explicitly cited in the dispositive orders 1, 2, or 3.

B.2016.163 · sg (Art. 68 VRP)

License Suspension Upheld for Failure to Yield to Moped on Bike Path

Not explicitly cited in the operative part, but generally governs court costs in the VRP.

B.2015.52.B.2015.53 · sg (Art. 68 Abs. 1 VRP)

Taxpayer Income Reassessment Upheld Due to Insufficient Proof of Foreign Loan

This is the general St. Gallen provision for costs, which would apply to the state court decision, but the decision only explicitly cites the cost amount and application in order 4.

B.2014.113 · sg (Art. 68 VRP)

Appeal Dismissed for Unqualified Gifted Education Funding

This article is the general basis for imposing costs in the appeal proceedings, as reflected in Order 2 which levies the official costs.

B.2012.226 · sg (Art. 68 al. 2 VRP)

License Revocation Upheld Due to Repeated Noise Violations and Contempt of Orders

Cited in the reasoning regarding costs for appeals to the Administrative Court, which are explicitly ordered in Order 2.

B.2013.135 · sg (Art. 68 Abs. 2 VRP)

Zoning Compliance of Erotic Business in Residential Area

The order for the reimbursement of extra-procedural costs (ausseramtlich) to the opposing party implies the application of the procedural rules regarding compensation.

B.2012.36 · sg (Art. 68 Abs. 2 VRP)

Revocation of Residence Permit After Separation; Continued Residence Granted Based on Children's Best Interests

This provision is not explicitly cited in the dispositive orders (orders 1, 2, 3). Therefore, it is excluded.