173.36
LPA-VDLJPA
CH-VD
Art. 87 LOI sur la procédure administrative (LPA-VD) - Mesures d'extrême urgence
Chapitre IV
Art. 87 LPA-VD · Mesures d'extrême urgence
1. S'il y a péril en la demeure, l'autorité peut ordonner des mesures au sens de l'article 86 immédiatement, sans entendre la partie adverse.
2. Dans ce cas, l'autorité impartit un bref délai à la partie adverse pour se déterminer, puis rend, également à bref délai, une décision confirmant ou infirmant les mesures ordonnées.
Décisions judiciaires appliquant cette disposition (6)
2.2019 · vd (art. 87 al. 1 LPA-VD)
Conflict of Interest Allegations in Litigation: Denial of Provisional Measures
Cited in the reasoning to explain the requirements for ordering measures immediately without hearing the other party, which was relevant to rejecting the urgency request.
AC.2015.0362 · vd (art. 87 LPA-VD)
Developer Appeal of Occupancy Permit Condition Regarding Solar Collectors
Cited in the reasoning regarding the possibility of requesting urgent provisional measures.
Ord.2010.11 · vd (Art. 87 LPA-VD)
Pension Fund Lump-Sum Payment Order
Cited at the beginning, indicating the legal basis for the judge's actions concerning provisional measures, although its specific application is implied by the issuance of the orders rather than explicitly named in the dispositive orders I-III.
AI.7.09 · vd (Art. 87 al. 1 LPA-VD)
Disability Pension Appeal and Denial of Urgent Measure for Retroactive Payment
Cited to explain the condition for ordering provisional measures immediately without hearing the adverse party (peril in delay), which the court ultimately found not met.
AA.43.08.33.2009 · vd (Art. 87 LPA-VD)
Rejection of Provisional Measures Application Due to Lack of Imminent Danger and Failure to Hear Opposing Party
The urgent provisional measure request was rejected based on the conditions outlined in this article.
AA.43.08.33.2009 · vd (art. 87 al. 1 LPA-VD)
Rejection of Provisional Measures Application Due to Lack of Imminent Danger and Failure to Hear Opposing Party
The court found that the requirements for ruling without hearing the opposing party under this specific paragraph were not met.