165.100 LPAMMVwVG

CH-TI

Art. 89 LPAmm Legge sulla procedura amministrativa (LPAmm)

LPAmm

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

Art. 89 LPAmm

[6] 1 Se il Tribunale cantonale amministrativo giudica l’assunzione o la nomina di un dipendente illegittima, esso lo accerta nella propria sentenza; di conseguenza l’assunzione o la nomina vengono annullate e gli atti sono rinviati all’autorità di nomina per una nuova decisione.

2 Il ricorso contro una decisione di assunzione o di nomina non ha effetto sospensivo.

3 I motivi di ricorso sono, a titolo esaustivo, i seguenti: manifesto mancato rispetto delle condizioni formali o sostanziali del bando di concorso o estromissione del ricorrente per motivi discriminatori legati segnatamente al sesso, allo stato civile o alla sua origine.

4 Il Tribunale cantonale amministrativo non può obbligare l’autorità competente ad assumere o nominare un candidato escluso.

[6] Art. modificato dalla L 24.2.2025; in vigore dal 1.6.2025 - BU 2025, 96; precedente modifica: BU 2020, 319.

← Art. 88 LPAmm Legge sulla procedura amministrativa (LPAmm) Art. 90 LPAmm →

Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (11)

52.2021.234 · ti (Art. 89 LPAmm)

Police Appointment Exclusion Upheld Due to Prior Fraud Conviction

Cited regarding the consequence of annulling the appointment, leading to referral back to the appointing authority for a new decision (mentioned in point 1.2.1 and 3.3).

52.2019.574 · ti (art. 89 cpv. 1 LPAmm)

Challenger v. State Council Regarding Public Works Hiring Requirements

This provision limited the Tribunal's ruling to declaring the appointment illegitimate rather than annulling it.

52.2018.402 · ti (art. 89 cpv. 1 LPAmm)

Correctional Officer Candidate Revocation Due to Chronic Health Limitations

The court limited the scope of the appeal based on this provision, stating the request for annulment was inadmissible in cases of illegitimate hiring/non-hiring.

52.2019.230 · ti (art. 89 cpv. 1 LPAmm)

Public Servant Appeal Against Appointment Dismissed Due to Discretionary Interview Evaluation

Used to establish that the request for annulment of the decision was inadmissible because the court must limit itself to ascertaining the illegitimacy of the appointment in the judgment.

52.2018.404 · ti (art. 89 cpv. 1 LPAmm)

Appeal Regarding Municipal Apprentice Hiring Qualifications

Used to establish that the administrative tribunal must limit itself to establishing illegitimacy in the sentence rather than annulling the decision, defining the scope of admissibility.

52.2017.461 · ti (art. 89 cpv. 1 LPAmm)

Candidate Challenge to Expert Appointments Upheld on Procedural Grounds but Dismissed on Merits of Discretionary Selection

Cited to explain why the request for annulment was deemed inadmissible, requiring the court to limit its ruling to confirming illegitimacy.

52.2018.402 · ti (art. 89 cpv. 1 LPAmm)

Applicant v. State Council (Prison Guard Medical Fitness)

Used to declare the request for annulment of the decision inadmissible, limiting the Tribunal's role to merely ascertaining illegitimacy.

52.2018.404 · ti (art. 89 cpv. 1 LPAmm)

Municipal Executive Hiring Competition Diploma Requirement Timing Dispute

The Tribunal limited its review, citing the procedural rule for illegitimate appointments or hirings.

52.2019.230 · ti (art. 89 cpv. 1 LPAmm)

Challenge to Logistic Section Head Appointment Upheld

Used to declare the appellant's main request for annulment inadmissible and to limit the Tribunal's decision to merely establishing the illegitimacy of the appointment.

52.2019.377 · ti (art. 89 cpv. 1 LPAmm)

Municipality Dismissal of Auxiliary Employee Over Procedural Irregularity

Cited in the reasoning to establish the power of the Tribunal regarding illegitimate appointments, even though the operative part only concerns termination.

52.2019.574 · ti (art. 89 cpv. 1 LPAmm)

Candidate Qualification Dispute and Illegitimacy of Appointments

Used to limit the ruling to declaring the illegitimacy of the appointment rather than annulling the decision, because the appeal concerned an illegitimate appointment.