Art. 39 RDSt Regolamento dei dipendenti dello Stato (RDSt)

60.2008.333 · ti (art. 39 lit. f LTF)

Legal Aid Expert Evaluation Reimbursement Dispute

Cited among the provisions applied in the final decision, related to the right to appeal to the Federal Tribunal.

60.2007.28 · ti (art. 39 lit. f LTF)

Bankruptcy Administrator's Attorney Access to Criminal Investigation File

This procedural provision was cited in the decision preamble, indicating its relevance to the ruling, likely concerning the jurisdiction or nature of the decision being made.

60.2005.127 · ti (Art. 39 lit. f LTF)

Applicant Denied Access to Criminal Case File for Archival Purposes

Cited as a procedural basis governing the appeal court's decision making.

32.2001.42 · ti (Art. 39 cpv. 3 LTF)

Insured v. Disability Insurance Office (Cataract Surgery Coverage Dispute)

This reference is inferred as standard procedural application for costs when an appeal is declared inadmissible (although not explicitly numbered in the dispositive, based on standard Swiss tribunal practice where costs follow the main outcome, coupled with the explicit mention of costs in order 3 and the reference to the appellate court in order 4 which implies federal law governs the final stage, however, since the actual decision cited in the dispositive are just 1-4, I must check only those. Order 3 states 'Non si percepisce tassa di giustizia, mentre le spese sono poste a carico dello Stato', which typically references the applicable Cantonal/Tribunal costs law, usually Art. 66 LTF for the Federal court. Since this is a Cantonal Tribunal decision, and no explicit costs article is cited in the dispositive orders 1-4, I will only include procedural articles mentioned there.

34.2013.48 · ti (art. 39 LTF)

Provident Fund v. Employer (Unpaid Contributions and Vexatious Conduct)

The instruction to appeal to the Federal Tribunal (point 3) implicitly assumes the application of procedural rules for appeals, though the specific article for the appeal itself (e.g., Art. 93 LTF for inadmissibility or Art. 90 LTF for content/review) is not explicitly cited in the operative part (1, 2). As point 3 only describes *how* to appeal, and doesn't rule *on* the appeal, the specific LTF provision for grounding the decision is excluded.

60.2005.127 · ti (art. 39 lit. f LTF)

Cantonal Entity Access to Dismissed Criminal File Denied

This article was cited as a procedural basis for the final decision by the Criminal Appeals Chamber.

60.2007.28 · ti (art. 39 lit. f LTF)

Bankruptcy Curator's Access to Criminal Investigation Files for Asset Recovery

This article was cited as a general legal basis for the decision, likely concerning the administrative or procedural powers of the appellate body regarding such requests.

60.2008.333 · ti (art. 39 lit. f LTF)

Defense Attorney Reimbursement for Private Expert Report Costs Denied

Cited in the preamble as applicable law, although not explicitly in the dispositive orders 1, 2, or 3.

72.2006.120 · ti (art. 11, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66 LTF)

Fraud, Drug Offenses, and Related Crimes Trial

These are procedural articles mentioned in the list of applicable laws via the general reference to the CPP (Code of Criminal Procedure), and are not explicitly numbered in the dispositive as having been applied for an order (like inadmissibility or decision on costs/legal aid according to LTF rules, which is not the case here, the cost allocation is referred to TG art. 39).