234.110
VRP
CH-SZ
CH-SZ
§ 37 Verwaltungsrechtspflegegesetz (VRP), vom 6. Juni 1974
2 Zivilrecht, Strafrecht, Rechtspflege » 23 Rechtspflege » 234 Verwaltungsrechtspflege
§ 37 Verwaltungsrechtspflegegesetz (VRP), vom 6. Juni 1974
3. Rechtsmittelbefugnis
1 Zur Einreichung eines Rechtsmittels ist berechtigt, wer
a) vor der Vorinstanz am Verfahren teilgenommen hat oder keine Möglichkeit zur
Teilnahme erhalten hat;
b) durch den angefochtenen Entscheid oder die angefochtene Verfügung beson-
ders berührt ist; und
c) ein schutzwürdiges Interesse an der Aufhebung oder Änderung des Entschei-
des oder der Verfügung hat.
2 Zur Einreichung eines Rechtsmittels sind ferner berechtigt
a) Gemeinden und andere öffentlich-rechtliche Körperschaften, wenn sie die
Verletzung von Garantien rügen, die ihnen die Kantons- oder Bundesverfas-
sung gewährt;
b) Personen, Organisationen und Behörden, wenn sie dazu durch einen Rechts-
satz ermächtigt sind.
Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (13)
III 2025 2 · sz (§ 80 Abs. 2 PBG i.V.m. § 37 Abs. 1 lit. b und lit. c VRP)
Appellants' Standing to Challenge Building Permits Dismissed
The appeal was not admitted because the appellants lacked the necessary active standing (lacked being particularly affected and a protected interest).
III 2024 25 · sz (§ 37 Abs. 1 VRP)
Appeal Regarding Retrospective Approval of Basement Floor Heating and Living Area Designation
Defines the entitlement to file an appeal (participation, being particularly affected, having a legitimate interest in annulment or amendment).
III 2023 74 · sz (§ 37 Abs. 1 VRP)
Forest Clearing Permit Quashed Over Flawed Noise Assessment
Cited in the reasoning section to define the entitlement to appeal, but not in the dispositive orders.
II 2023 56 · sz (Art. 37 Abs. 1 VRP)
Municipality's Lack of Legal Standing to Appeal Health Insurance Apportionment
Cited in the reasoning relating to the lack of legitimacy for the appeal, although the final order did not enforce this aspect directly by dismissing the appeal based on this lack of legitimacy (non-entry into the merits). Since the main reason for non-entry was lack of legitimacy, this procedural provision relating to the capacity to appeal is retained as the closest procedural aspect to the outcome, even if § 37 Abs. 1 lit. c VRP was mentioned in point 6.1.
III 2022 107 · sz (§ 37 Abs. 1 lit. b und lit. c VRP)
Guardian Compensation Dispute and Removal Request Appeal
Cited in the reasoning to establish the standing (schutzwürdiges Interesse) required for lodging an appeal.
III 2021 210 · sz (§ 37 Abs. 1 lit. b VRP)
Appeal Deemed Moot Due to Appellant's Full Success in Prior Administrative Appeal
Cited in the reasoning context regarding the prerequisites for the right to appeal (being particularly affected by the decision).
III 2021 128 · sz (Art. 27 lit. d i.V.m. § 37 lit. a VRP)
Supervisory Complaint Review of Procedural Costs in Criminal Proceedings Dismissal
Cited regarding the inadmissibility of the appeal regarding the substantive decision on the supervisory complaint due to lack of legal standing for review by the Administrative Court.
III 2019 183 · sz (Art. 37 Abs. 1 lit. c VRP)
Appeal Challenging Non-Binding Reasoning in Remand Decision Dismissed
Cited as the ground for not entering into the appeal due to lack of a protected interest for the requested annulment of considerations.
III 2019 185 · sz (§ 37 VRP)
Custodial Parent Residency Registration Overrides Foster Care Location
Cited in the context of assessing the appellant's (mother's) interest in challenging the costs imposed on the municipality by the Government Council.
III 2019 147 · sz (§ 37 Abs. 1 lit. c VRP)
Appeal of Treatment Cancellation and Jurisdictional Rulings
This procedural provision concerning the requirement for a party to have a protected interest was considered when determining whether to rule on the merits of the appeal regarding the lifting of the outpatient treatment.
III 2018 110 · sz (§ 37 Abs. 1 VRP)
Administrative Court Remands Traffic Ordinance Appeal on Procedural Standing
The appeal was granted and the previous decision annulled because the Court found that the requirement for standing (Beschwerdelegitimation) under this provision needed further assessment by the lower instance.
III 2017 227 · sz (Art. 37 Abs. 1 VRP)
Social Assistance Conditions and Conflicting Medical Evidence Appeal
Although the court found the first appeal inadmissible under § 37 Abs. 1 VRP, the reasoning for the merits decision on appeal III 2017 227 is based on the substantive assessment that the Government Council's annulment of the requirements was correct.
III 2017 227 · sz (§ 37 Abs. 1 VRP)
Social Assistance Conditions and Conflicting Medical Evidence Appeal
Used in the reasoning to determine the admissibility of the appeal (Beschwerde III 2018 4), which was ultimately dismissed due to lack of sufficient interest in appeal (Rechtsschutzinteresse).