172.6
VVRGLPJA
CH-VS
CH-VS
Art. 79 Loi sur la procédure et la juridiction administratives (LPJA) - b) Pouvoir de décision
La juridiction du Tribunal cantonal - Le Tribunal cantonal comme autorité de recours - Juridiction de droit administratif
Art. 79 LPJA · b) Pouvoir de décision
1. Le Tribunal cantonal ne peut aller au-delà des conclusions du recourant, ni modifier la décision attaquée à son détriment.
2. Il n'est pas lié par la motivation des conclusions du recourant.
3. La présentation de moyens nouveaux en fait et en droit est recevable, sauf disposition légale contraire.
4. ...
Décisions judiciaires appliquant cette disposition (20)
A1 24 78 · vs (art. 79 al. 2 LPJA)
Landowners v. Cantonal State Council (Access Road Approval)
The court exercised its power to raise arguments ex officio to confirm the infirmity of the contested decision.
A1 24 27 · vs (Art. 79 Abs. 1 VVRG)
Cantonal Council Water Protection Zone Width Dispute
The court refers to this article when justifying the scope of review regarding the parties' requests, although this article is not explicitly cited in the dispositive orders, the result (annulment/remittal) is based on substantive findings where procedural limits were considered.
A1 24 3 · vs (Art. 79 Abs. 1VVRG)
Construction Company Challenge to Administrative Road Renovation Bid Scoring Upheld
Cited to state that the court is bound by the appellant's requests.
A1 24 3 · vs (Art. 79 Abs. 2 VVRG)
Construction Company Challenge to Administrative Road Renovation Bid Scoring Upheld
Cited regarding the court's boundness by the reasoning of the requests, but not the motives of the contested decision.
A1 23 141 · vs (art. 79 al. 1 LPJA)
Association Standing to Appeal Zoning Decision
Mentioned in the context of why denying standing does not violate the prohibition of reformatio in pejus.
A1 23 184 · vs (Art. 79 Abs. 3 VVRG)
Ski Accident Victim Compensation Appeal
Cited as the basis allowing the submission of new factual and legal arguments before the Cantonal Court as the appeal body.
A1 22 88 · vs (art. 79 al. 1 LPJA)
Property Owner Appeal Against Insufficient Construction Deadline
Cited in the reasoning regarding the limit on the court's ability to grant a deadline longer than requested by the appellant (30 months), which informs the final order setting the deadline.
A1 21 287 · vs (Art. 79 al. 2 LPJA)
Employee Termination Appeal Timeliness Due to Procedural Flaw in Notification
The court noted that the anomaly (the Court of State illegally depriving the appellant of his right to a decision on the merits) must be corrected ex officio.
A1 21 187 · vs (Art. 79 Abs. 1 VVRG)
State Council Waste Disposal Fee Assessment Appeal
This article dictates the scope of the review by the Cantonal Court, which the court cites implicitly by stating it cannot go beyond the appellants' requests.
A1 21 71 · vs (Art. 79 VVRG)
Appeal Upheld Due to Incomplete Administrative Record and Procedural Due Process Violation
Cited in the reasoning confirming that the Court applies the law ex officio.
A1 20 108 · vs (Art. 79 Abs. 1 VVRG)
Property Owners Appeal Utility Assessment for Access Road
Applied to prevent the court from amending the challenged decision to the detriment of the appellants (prohibition of reformatio in peius).
A1 21 113 · vs (art. 79 al. 1 LPJA)
State Council Decision Annulled for Excessive Formalism in Premature Appeal Dismissal
This procedural rule limited the Court's ability to rule on the merits of the case, as the request to do so did not come from the appellants.
A1 19 113 · vs (Art. 79 Abs. 1 VVRG)
Canton v. Compensation for Expropriated Barn
The court determined that a change in the compensation amount beyond what the appellant recognized (Fr. 16,000) was not permissible under this provision, leading to the confirmation of the Fr. 16,000 award.
A1 18 176 · vs (art. 79 al. 1 LPJA)
Property Owners v. State Council: Road Contribution Surcharge Uniformity Challenge
The court cannot go beyond the conclusions of the appellant or modify the decision to their detriment, a general procedural rule.
A1 18 157 · vs (Art. 79 al. 2 LPJA)
Administrative Personnel Classification Appeal Mootness
Cited in the reasoning section, but relevant as the court applied its power to review the law ex officio, which informed the decision to annul the lower court's ruling.