165.100
LPAMMVwVG
CH-TI
CH-TI
Art. 69 LPAmm Legge sulla procedura amministrativa (LPAmm)
LPAmm
Art. 69 LPAmm
1 Il ricorrente può far valere
a) la violazione del diritto, compreso l’eccesso o l’abuso del potere di apprezzamento;
b) l’accertamento inesatto o incompleto dei fatti giuridicamente rilevanti;
c) l’inadeguatezza.
2 La censura di inadeguatezza è ammissibile davanti al Tribunale cantonale amministrativo nei casi previsti dalla legge.
Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (124)
52.2023.414 · ti (art. 69 cpv. 1 lett. c LPAmm)
Physician Disciplinary Warning Upheld for Exceeding Medical Mandate in Divorce Case Documentation
Cited in the context of confirming that the appellate authority (the Cantonal Executive) had full review power, which allowed for the sanation of the procedural defect.
52.2025.115 · ti (art. 69 cpv. 1 lett. a LPAmm)
Revocation of Navigation License Upheld Over Economic Interests
The court confirmed the lower authority's decision regarding the suspension of effect by verifying that the assessment of competing interests was not an abuse of discretion under this provision.
52.2025.86 · ti (art. 69 cpv. 1 lett. a LPAmm)
Student Cost Assessment Challenge Upheld
Cited to explain the standard of review for assessing the discretionary margin when setting judicial costs (though the appeal was rejected on admissibility).
52.2024.308 · ti (art. 69 cpv. 1 lett. a LPAmm)
Appeal Against Cantonal Gallery Director Appointment Due to Flawed Qualification Verification
While mentioned in the reasoning regarding the scope of review, this article was not explicitly cited in the dispositive orders (1, 2, 3, 4).
52.2024.308 · ti (art. 69 cpv. 2 LPAmm)
Appeal Against Cantonal Gallery Director Appointment Due to Flawed Qualification Verification
While mentioned in the reasoning regarding the scope of review, this article was not explicitly cited in the dispositive orders (1, 2, 3, 4).
52.2023.297 · ti (art. 69 cpv. 1 lett. a LPAmm)
Notary Disciplinary Warning Upheld for Delayed Client Correspondence
Cited in the reasoning (consid. 5) regarding the review criteria for the administrative body's discretion in setting procedural costs.
52.2024.237 · ti (Art. 69 cpv. 1 LPAmm)
Security Agent Suspension Appeal Regarding Traffic Conviction
Used to confirm that the lower authority's decision, which failed to properly balance interests, violated the law and justified the appeal's acceptance.
52.2023.423 · ti (Art. 69 LPAmm)
Teacher Salary Classification Appeal
The court confirmed that its review power is limited regarding the assessment of adequacy in remuneration matters, which is cited in the context of the review standard applied to the decision.
52.2023.317 · ti (art. 69 cpv. 1 lett. a LPAmm)
Appeal Against Administrative Fee Imposed Following LAFE Exemption Ruling
Although cited in the reasoning (4.1.3) to explain when the administrative authority's discretion can be reviewed, it is not cited in the dispositive section (orders 1, 2, 3). Therefore, it must be excluded based on the rules.
52.2022.111 · ti (art. 69 cpv. 1 LPAmm)
Public Servant v. State Council Regarding Internal-Only Job Posting
Cited in the reasoning when defining the limits of the court's review over the discretionary power of the appointing authority.
52.2021.445 · ti (art. 69 cpv. 2 LPAmm)
Municipality Official Loses Appeal Over 2019 Final Accounts Approval
Cited in the reasoning to state that the court is precluded from reviewing the appropriateness of the measure.
52.2022.416 · ti (art. 69 cpv. 1 lett. a LPAmm)
Driving License Revocation Suspension Appeal After Positive Drug Test
Cited in order 3 to specify the legal basis for appeal to the Federal Tribunal, although the review of the denial of the suspensive effect was based on this article in the reasoning (checking for abuse of power).
52.2021.194 · ti (Art. 69 cpv. 1 lett. a LPAmm)
Water Consortium Dissolution Upheld Despite Procedural Flaw
The court used this article to confirm its power to review the legality of the administrative body's exercise of discretionary power, which was a factor in rejecting the appeal.
52.2020.241 · ti (art. 69 cpv. 1 lett. a LPAmm)
Waste Authority Data Release Transparency Appeal
Cited indirectly as the basis for reviewing the administrative authority's discretionary power regarding the weighing of interests.
52.2020.268 · ti (art. 69 cpv. 1 lett. a LPAmm)
Property Permit Overturned Due to Inadequate Road Classification
Cited as the standard for judicial review of the discretion regarding sufficient access.