§ 66 Verfassung des Kantons Thurgau (KV) - Humanitäre Hilfe

UV.2022.40 · bs (Art. 66 BV)

Insurance Benefits Cessation Upheld After Accident Medical End-State Reached

Not cited.

SK 2020 440 · be (Art. 66 BV)

Shipping Executive Convicted of Multi-Million Franc Fraud and Mismanagement

Mentioned in reasoning as a guarantee for a fair trial, but not explicitly cited in the final orders (Dispositiv I-VI).

II 2022 22 · sz (Art. 66 Abs. 1 BV)

COVID-19 Earned Income Replacement Compensation for Business Closure

The appeal was dismissed, and thus the appellant must bear the court costs.

36.2022.5 · ti (art. 66 Cost and Fee Rule)

Insured vs. Health Insurance Fund (Administrative Fees and Late Interest)

Provision cited in point 9, indicating no costs are levied (although the specific reference is likely a general reference to cost rules, the explicit citation in the final order is included).

II 2022 16 · sz (Art. 66 Abs. 1 BV)

Claimant v. Compensation Office: Waiver of Assets and Supplementary Benefits Eligibility

This provision was cited in the dispositive to order the appellant to pay the court costs.

I 2021 79 · sz (Art. 66 Abs. 1 BV)

Disability Insurance Cost and Compensation Following Appeal

The court awarded costs to the opposing party in the dispositive section.

SB.2021.00011 · zh (Art. 66 Abs. 1 BV)

Property Gains Tax Recusal Appeal Dismissed Due to Untimely Assertion

Although not explicitly listed in the body of the text provided, the lack of a final dispositive section listing costs prevents verification. Assuming standard procedure where costs are addressed, if costs were imposed, the relevant article would be included. Based solely on the provided text fragments, no cost provision is explicitly cited in the *dispositive* section (which is missing after the summary/references).

B.2020.228 · sg (Art. 66 (implied by context of cost imposition in order 3))

Residence Permit Revocation Post-Divorce Upheld

Although Order 3 imposes costs (Art. 66 al. 1 LTF is the standard citation), the explicit reference used in the dispositive is the financial order itself. I will use the most explicitly cited procedural/cost provision related to costs, but since no explicit citation for costs is in orders 1-4, I must check the common citation for costs in this jurisdiction, which is usually Art. 66 LTF. However, since the instruction states: 'If the dispositive imposes costs or rules on legal aid, include the article cited (e.g. Art. 66 al. 1 LTF for costs)', and no such citation appears in orders 1-4, I must adhere strictly to what is written. Since no article is explicitly cited in Orders 3 and 4, I cannot include a cost provision based on the strict rules, unless I find one elsewhere in the dispositive. Since Orders 1-4 are the dispositive, and they contain no article citation for costs, I must exclude them based on the rule.

II 2020 69 · sz (Art. 66 Abs. 1 BV)

Supplementary Benefit Asset Valuation Appeal

The final order mandates the appellant to pay court costs.

C/26840/2017 · ge (Art. 66 Cost. (Costs))

Maintenance Obligation Modification in Divorce Proceedings

Not cited in the dispositive.

BV.2018.12 · bs (Art. 66 [Implied by 'Das Verfahren ist kostenlos' and 'Parteientschädigung' in the dispositive, but no specific cost provision like Art. 66 LTF is cited in the final orders. Only the outcome regarding costs is stated.])

Insured Person v. Vested Benefits Foundation: Entitlement to Disability Pension Capital upon Emigration

The final order explicitly states 'Das Verfahren ist kostenlos' and orders the payment of a party compensation, but the actual legal provision for these specific cost rulings (like Art. 66 LTF or equivalent) is not cited in the final dispositive orders.

VB.2016.00751 · zh (Art. 66 Abs. 1 BV)

Daycare Operator Capability Assessment Appeal

The court ordered the lower authority to bear part of the appeal costs due to its procedural error.

ZKBER.2017.1 · so (Art. 66 Abs. 1 BV (Implied via cost order))

Appellant's Failure to Quantify Child Support Reduction and Lack of Prior Legal Aid Application Bars Appeal

The losing party (the appellant/petitioner) was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

B.2015.162 · sg (Art. 66 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BV)

Denial of Master's Scholarship Upheld Due to Exceeded Maximum Educational Duration

This article from the Federal Constitution concerning federal standards was mentioned in the background discussion regarding cantonal autonomy in scholarship matters, but its application is not directly in the dispositive order.

B.2015.162 · sg (Art. 66 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BV)

Scholarship Denial Based on Exceeded Maximum Educational Duration

Mentioned in the context of federal standards for grants, but not used in the dispositive orders.