172.6 VVRGLPJA

CH-VS

Art. 29 Loi sur la procédure et la juridiction administratives (LPJA) - Motivation et notification

La procédure devant les autorités administratives - La décision

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

Art. 29 LPJA · Motivation et notification

1. L'autorité notifie sa décision à chaque partie par écrit. Même lorsque la décision est notifiée sous forme de lettre, elle doit être désignée comme telle.

2. Si la nature de l'affaire l'exige, la décision est notifiée verbalement. Elle sera confirmée par écrit si l'intéressé, informé de son droit lors de la notification orale, le demande dans les cinq jours.

3. La décision écrite doit être motivée en fait et en droit. Elle est datée et signée. Elle mentionne les voies de recours ordinaires ouvertes aux parties et le délai de recours.

4. Le délai court dès la notification ou dès la confirmation écrite.

← Art. 28a LPJA Loi sur la procédure et la juridiction administratives (LPJA) - Principes Art. 30 LPJA →

Décisions judiciaires appliquant cette disposition (12)

A3 24 20 · vs (art. 29 al. 3 LPJA)

Construction Company Fined for Unauthorised and Non-Compliant Retaining Walls

Cited in consideration 3.1 as part of the framework for the right to be heard, but not in the dispositive orders.

A1 24 96 · vs (Art. 29 Abs. 3 VVRG)

Property Owners' Association Appeal Regarding Road Resurfacing as Material Expropriation

Cited in the reasoning section regarding the duty to motivate decisions, relevant for the procedural validity of the lower decision which was ultimately upheld (dismissal).

A1 24 27 · vs (Art. 29 Abs. 3 VVRG)

Cantonal Council Water Protection Zone Width Dispute

Cited in the reasoning (E. 3.2) as the cantonal legal basis for the duty to substantiate decisions.

A1 23 134 · vs (Art. 29 Abs. 3 VVRG)

Appeal Against Building Permit Revocation Dismissed

Cited to address the argument concerning the duty to provide a reasoned decision, though ultimately finding the requirement met.

A1 22 162 · vs (Art. 29 al. 3 LPJA)

Appeal Regarding Denial of Social Assistance and Emergency Aid

Procedural article cited in the context of the formal complaint about the motivation, which the court implicitly rejected by partially upholding the decision.

A1 22 94 · vs (art. 29 al. 3 LPJA)

Group Residence Operating Ban Upheld Due to Severe Fire Safety Deficiencies

Cited when examining the appellant's complaint regarding the violation of the right to be heard (reasoned decision).

A1 22 104 · vs (Art. 29 Abs. 3 VVRG)

Cantonal Council Decision Overturned for Failure to Address Key Objections in Structural Improvement Project

Cited as the cantonal basis for the obligation to state reasons for official acts, the violation of which led to the annulment.

A3 20 36 · vs (Art. 29 Abs. 3 VVRG)

Challenge to Administrative Order Regarding Water Intake Structure Fine and Removal

Cited in the reasoning (E. 1.2) regarding the requirement for a legal advice notice in the written decision.

RVJ 2021 p 55 59 · vs (Art. 29 al. 3 LPJA)

Law Graduate Successfully Challenges Notary Exam Failure Due to Insufficient Justification of Low Score

Cited as the procedural law context for the requirement to motivate decisions, linked to the right to be heard.

A1 19 156 · vs (Art. 29 Abs. 3 VVRG)

Environmental Groups v. Canton on Wolf Cull Permit Validity

Mentioned in the reasoning concerning the duty to provide reasons, which supported the main ground for annulment (although not directly cited in the dispositive orders, it is cited alongside Art. 29 para. 2 BV in the context of assessing the validity of the prior decision's reasoning).

A1 19 44 · vs (Art. 29 Abs. 3 VVRG)

Administrative Appeal on Expropriation Compensation and Valuation Transparency

Cited in the reasoning to establish the minimum requirement for justifying a sovereign act (ruling) as part of the right to be heard.

A1 09 26 · vs (Art. 29 al. 3 LPJA)

Cantonal Commission Authority vs. Procedural Rights in Unauthorized Earthworks Case

Cited in the reasoning regarding the fulfillment of motivation requirements, although the primary substantive ground for the verdict is procedural regarding the right to file a new application.