Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
165.100 LPAMMVwVG CH-TI

Art. 61 LPAmm Legge sulla procedura amministrativa (LPAmm)

LPAmm
Apri la fonte ufficiale Atto completo (115 Articoli) Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Art. 61 LPAmm

1 Se l’autorità ammette l’istanza di revisione, annulla la decisione precedente e pronuncia nuovamente sul merito.

2 L’annullamento di una decisione di rinvio determina la nullità di quella che fu pronunciata dall’autorità inferiore a seguito del rinvio.

3 Il giudizio di revisione è impugnabile con i rimedi ordinari di diritto se non emana da un’autorità cantonale d’ultima istanza.

← Art. 60 LPAmm Legge sulla procedura amministrativa (LPAmm) Art. 62 LPAmm →

Ti chiedi come si applica questa disposizione alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa norma insieme alla giurisprudenza, ai commentari e alle disposizioni correlate in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (349)

52.2013.360 · ti (art. 61 cpv. 2 LPamm)
Appeal Regarding Building Permit Denial for Balcony and Attic Terrace Alterations
Cited in reasoning section 5.3 concerning the review of the administrative authorities' margin of appreciation regarding the aesthetic judgment on the mansard terrace modifications.
52.2013.360 · ti (art. 61 cpv. 2 LPamm)
Appeal Regarding Building Permit Denial for Balcony and Attic Terrace Alterations
Cited in reasoning section 6 concerning the finding that the aesthetic assessment of the lower authorities regarding the balcony slab type was unsustainable and an abusive exercise of discretionary power.
52.2012.259 · ti (art. 61 LPamm)
Appeal Against Building Permit for Multi-Family Residence in Traditional Village Core
Cited in the reasoning leading to the finding of an incorrect exercise of discretionary power regarding the aesthetic judgment, although not explicitly in the final orders, the preceding analysis (Considerando 4.2) concludes that the aesthetic judgment violates the law due to incorrect exercise of discretion (art. 61 LPamm), justifying the overall acceptance of the appeal (Order 1).
90.2011.36 · ti (art. 61 seg. LPamm)
Property Owners v. State Council (Gambarogno Land Use Plan Reclassification)
Basis for accepting the appeals due to clear reasoning and fact-finding deficiencies in the challenged resolution.
90.2011.40 · ti (art. 61 seg. LPamm)
Owner v. Municipality (Land Use Reclassification)
The appeal was partially accepted and the challenged resolution annulled due to evident deficiencies in motivation and fact-finding, referencing these articles concerning the scope of review and procedure.
90.2011.43 · ti (art. 61 seg. LPamm)
Property Owners V. State Council Zoning Revision Approval
Cited in the reasoning regarding the limited scope of review of the Administrative Tribunal.
90.2011.69 · ti (art. 61 seg. LPamm)
Property Owners v. State Council Regarding Zoning Plan Revision
The appeals are granted, in part, due to manifest deficiencies in motivation, which required the court to use its power to review the facts and law, leading to the partial annulment of the resolution.
90.2011.74 · ti (art. 61 seg. LPamm)
Property Owners v. State Council on Zoning Reclassification
The appeal decisions (annulment of the resolution) were based on the clear lack of reasoning, which falls under procedural rules applied in the dispositive.
90.2011.78 · ti (art. 61 seg. LPamm)
Property Owners v. State Council (Land Use Plan Challenge)
The appeal was partially granted and the previous resolution annulled based on procedural deficiencies (lack of sufficient reasoning and factual assessment) found under these articles.
90.2011.85 · ti (art. 61 seg. LPamm)
Property Owners v. State Council (Zoning Plan Reclassification)
The appeal was partially granted based on the clear deficiencies in reasoning and fact-finding, as per these procedural articles.
90.2011.92 · ti (art. 61 seg. LPamm)
Property Owners v. Government Resolution on Municipal Development Plan Revision
The court cited this article as the legal basis for finding that the State Council violated the law by delaying its decision.
52.2013.327 · ti (Art. 61 LPamm)
Candidate v. State Council Regarding Appointment Criteria
The appeal was granted because the government's decision violated the law by abusing its discretion by introducing irrelevant social policy criteria.
52.2013.189 · ti (art. 61 cpv. 1 LPamm)
Challenge to Snow Removal Tender Specifications Upheld
This provision concerning the review of discretionary power was cited in the reasoning to explain the scope of review, but it does not appear in the dispositive orders 1-4.
52.2011.200 · ti (art. 61 cpv. 2 LPamm)
Appellant v. Administration (Special School Transport Subsidy Rate)
Cited in the reasoning concerning the review of the Government's decision on legal costs, upholding the decision not to be deemed an abuse of power.
52.2012.222 · ti (art. 61 LPamm)
Municipal Road Weight Restrictions and Authorization for Exceptions
Cited in the reasoning section (order 4.2) concerning the review standard for the amount of the judicial fee.