172.6 VVRGLPJA

CH-VS

Art. 10 Loi sur la procédure et la juridiction administratives (LPJA)

Règles générales de procédure - Récusation

Ouvrir la source officielle Texte complet (114 Articles) Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Art. 10 LPJA

1. Les personnes appelées à rendre ou à préparer une décision doivent se récuser

a) si elles ont un intérêt personnel dans l'affaire;

b) si elles sont parentes ou alliées d'une partie, en ligne directe, ou jusqu'au troisième degré en ligne collatérale, ou si elles sont unies par mariage, fiançailles ou adoption;

c) si elles représentent une partie ou ont agi dans la même affaire pour une partie;

d) * lorsqu'un parent ou allié, jusqu'au deuxième degré inclusivement, agit comme avocat, représentant ou mandataire de l'une des parties;

e) s'il existe des circonstances de nature à faire suspecter leur impartialité.

2. Le membre d'une autorité collégiale dont le département ou le dicastère a pris la décision attaquée se récuse lorsque cette autorité statue. En cas d'égalité des voix, celui qui préside tranche.

3. En cas de conflit sur la récusation d'un membre d'une autorité collégiale, la décision est prise par cette dernière en l'absence de ce membre. Dans les autres cas, la décision est prise par l'autorité ordinaire de recours (art. 42 let. b).

← Art. 9 LPJA Loi sur la procédure et la juridiction administratives (LPJA) - Principes Art. 11 LPJA →

Décisions judiciaires appliquant cette disposition (11)

A1 05 111 · vs (Art. 10 Abs. 1 VVRG)

Municipality Employee Contract Public Law Nature Determination

Cited in the reasoning to support the application of grounds for recusation to the employee due to the public nature of the task.

C2 23 85 · vs (art. 10 al. 1 let. e LPJA)

Applicant v. Supervisory Authority for Lawyers (Recusal Dispute)

Used as the substantive legal standard when rejecting the recusal request against specific members (Gattlen, Gagliardi, Burkhalter).

C2 23 85 · vs (art. 10 al. 3 LPJA)

Applicant v. Supervisory Authority for Lawyers (Recusal Dispute)

The decision was annulled because the request for recusal of the entire chamber should have been decided by the ordinary appellate authority, as per this provision.

A1 24 23 · vs (art. 10 al. 3 LPJA)

Inmate Leave Denial Appeal After Mother's Death

Cited in the reasoning section (cons. 2) regarding jurisdiction over recusation motions, which led to a finding of nullity in a prior related decision (A1 23 157), but not directly used in the final dispositive orders of this specific judgment, except as implied by the rejection of the recusation request in order 1.

F2 24 3 · vs (Art. 10 VVRG)

Recusal Denial Based on Alleged Procedural Errors and Opinions

The application for recusal was dismissed because no grounds for recusal according to this article were established.

A1 23 121 · vs (art. 10 al. 3 LPJA)

Appellant v. Sanctions and Accompaniment Measures Office

Cited regarding the jurisdiction of the appeal court to rule on the request for recusation that was part of the second appeal.

A3 22 38 · vs (Art. 10 VVRG)

Appealability of Acquittal and Costs Reimbursement in Obstruction Case

Cited in the reasoning regarding bias/recusal arguments in cantonal administrative procedures.

A3 22 1 · vs (Art. 10 Abs. 3 VVRG)

Police Court Composition and Recusal Flaws Void Decision

Cited in reasoning regarding the procedure for deciding on challenges to the impartiality of board members, which informed the decision to remand the case.

A1 19 214 · vs (Art. 10 Abs. 1 VVRG)

Litigant v. School Board Regarding Recusal and Failing Grades

The substantive ground used in point 5 to discuss the legal requirements for an official to recuse themselves (Ausstand).

C2 14 28 · vs (Art. 10 al. 1 LPJA)

Attorney Disciplinary Warning Upheld for Excessive Billing

Although the complaint regarding the right to recusal was rejected, this article was central to the procedural argument addressed in the reasoning.

A1 04 22 · vs (Art. 10 al. 1 lettre e LPJA)

Ambulance Service Authorization and Recusal of Competing Board Members

Cited as the basis for mandatory recusal when circumstances suggest a lack of impartiality, which the court found applicable to the members of the OCVS council.