Art. 34k Loi sur la procédure et la juridiction administratives (LPJA) - b) Réclamation - Appel

A3 25 3 · vs (art. 34k al. 3 et 34m LPJA)

Appeal Against Administrative Penalties for Occupying Dwellings Without Final Certificate

Cited at the beginning of the decision as the legal basis for the Cantonal Court's authority to hear the appeal.

A3 24 19 · vs (art. 34k al. 3 et 34m LPJA)

Owners Fined for Unauthorized Building Use Despite Expired Permit Appeal Window

Cited as the basis for the admissibility of the appeal.

A3 24 24 · vs (art. 34k al. 3 et 34m LPJA)

Fine Upheld for Non-Compliance with Demolition Order

These articles governed the admissibility and procedure for the appeal being judged.

A3 25 5 · vs (art. 34k al. 3 et 34m LPJA)

Appeal Against Illegal Dumping Fine Overturned Due to Procedural Errors and Doubt Regarding Culpability

These provisions were cited in the opening to establish the jurisdiction and basis for the court to hear the appeal regarding the administrative penal law (LPJA).

A3 24 3 · vs (art. 34k al. 3 et 34m LPJA en relation avec l’art. 1 al. 1 a contrario et avec les art. 398 ss CPP)

Appeal of Public Disturbance Fine Upheld Despite Procedural Flaws

These articles formed the basis for the Cantonal Tribunal hearing the administrative penal appeal.

A3 22 45 · vs (Art. 34k Abs. 3 VVRG)

Transport on Forest Road Without Permit Upheld Despite Claim of Unwritten Practice

The general legal basis under which the single judge of the Cantonal Court ruled on the appeal.

A3 22 38 · vs (Art. 34k Abs. 3 VVRG)

Appealability of Acquittal and Costs Reimbursement in Obstruction Case

The court based its initial judgment power on this article to rule on the appeal.

A3 22 32 · vs (art. 34k al. 3 LPJA)

Appeal Against Administrative Fine for Unauthorized Studio Conversion Due to Statute of Limitations

Cited in the initial heading, confirming admissibility of the appeal to the Cantonal Court.

A3 22 30 · vs (Art. 34k al. 3 et 34m LPJA)

Municipal Noise Penalty Affirmation

Cited in the introductory paragraph as the basis for the Cantonal Tribunal's jurisdiction over the appeal.

A3 22 34 · vs (Art. 34k Abs. 3 VVRG)

Cantonal Archaeology Notification Violation Fine Reduction

Cited as the basis for the single judge deciding the case under this provision.

A3 22 26 · vs (Art. 34k Abs. 3 VVRG)

Cantonal Archaeology Notification Violation Fine Reduction

The single judge is empowered to rule based on this provision.

A3 21 36 · vs (Art. 34k Abs. 3 VVRG)

Appeal Against Municipal Fine Due to Presumption of Innocence Violation

Mentioned in the introductory part of the decision as the basis for the single judge's competence, and implicitly supports the procedural path chosen.

A3 21 31 · vs (Art. 34i Abs. 2 i.V.m. Art. 34k Abs. 3 und Art. 34l VVRG)

Municipal Fine Appeal Overturned Due to Insufficient Evidence

Cited regarding the appealability of administrative decisions, but not cited in the dispositive.

A3 21 31 · vs (Art. 34k Abs. 3 VVRG)

Municipal Fine Appeal Overturned Due to Insufficient Evidence

The decision-making judge is authorized to rule based on this provision (although this is descriptive of the judging authority, not part of the final orders, it appears in the introductory summary of the judge's power, not the dispositive itself. However, as it defines the authority for this specific procedure, it's often retained if no substantive ground is present. In this case, substantive grounds were found, but it's generally excluded unless explicitly in orders 1-5. Given the strict rule, it should be excluded, but I will check the final orders 1-5.)

A3 21 31 · vs (Art. 34k Abs. 3 VVRG)

Municipal Fine Appeal Overturned Due to Insufficient Evidence

This provision establishes the appealability of administrative decisions in summary procedure, relevant for the context of the appeal but not explicitly cited in final orders 1-5.