Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
175.2 VRGLPALGA CH-ZH

Art. 38a : Verwaltungsrechtspflegegesetz (VRG)

Originalquelle öffnen Gesamter Erlass (126 Artikel) Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Art. 38a

49 1 Das Verwaltungsgericht entscheidet in Fünferbesetzung b. Fünfer-

über Rechtsmittel gegen Erlasse.

besetzung

2 Der Spruchkörper besteht aus drei Mitgliedern des Verwaltungs-

gerichts sowie zwei Mitgliedern

a. des Obergerichts bei Beschwerden gegen Erlasse aus den Berei-

chen des Privat- oder Strafrechts,

b. des Sozialversicherungsgerichts bei Beschwerden gegen Erlasse

aus dem Bereich des Sozialversicherungsrechts.

3 § 38 Abs. 2 gilt sinngemäss.

← Art. 38 Verwaltungsrechtspflegegesetz (VRG) Art. 38b →

Fragen Sie sich, wie diese Gesetzesbestimmung auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Erlass zusammen mit Rechtsprechung, Kommentaren und verwandten Gesetzesbestimmungen in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (24)

AN.2011.00003 · zh (§ 38a Abs. I VRG)
Jurisdiction for Challenging Municipal Parking Ordinance
This article is cited among the legal norms, suggesting it forms the basis for the final decision regarding jurisdiction.
VB.2021.00697 · zh (§ 38a Abs. I VRG)
Cantonal Health Authority Visiting Ban Publication Case
Cited in the context of procedural aspects, specifically concerning the standing to appeal.
AN.2018.00001 · zh (§ 38a Abs. 1 VRG)
Cantonal Council Ordinance Amendment Standing Challenge Dismissed
This provision is listed among the legal norms cited in the context of the final decision, which dismissed the appeal by refusing to enter a decision on the merits.
AN.2016.00001 · zh (§ 38a VRG)
Zoning Change Rejection Due to Protected Townscape Status
This procedural norm might have been cited in the dispositive regarding the procedure followed, although its specific application in the final orders is not detailed by its description alone.
AN.2015.00003 · zh (§ 38a Abs. I VRG)
Challenge to Municipal Sewage Disposal Fee Ordinance Upheld
This article is cited in the reasoning regarding procedural law, but not explicitly in the final orders.
VB.2010.00456 · zh (§ 38a Abs. I VRG)
Municipality Zoning Ordinance Challenge Regarding Mobile Phone Installations
Cited in the list of legal norms related to administrative review, likely relevant to the procedure or scope of review.
AN.2012.00002 · zh (§ 38a Abs. I VRG)
Flood Protection Regulation Deadline Appeal Dismissal
Cited as part of the relevant legal norms, likely relating to costs or procedure, given its presence in the list of cited norms.
AN.2011.00004 · zh (§ 38a Abs. I VRG)
Water Fee Ordinance Challenge Rejected on Standing and Discretionary Authority
Cited in the legal norms section, relevant to the procedural aspects of the appeal.
VB.2011.00722 · zh (§ 38a Abs. I VRG)
Appeal Regarding Effective Date of Repeal of Physician Self-Dispensing Prohibition
Cited as a related procedural norm.
VB.2010.00572 · zh (§ 38a VRG)
Constitutionality of Psychiatric Expert Opinion Regulations
Cited in relation to the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court and abstract norm control.
VB.2010.00323 · zh (§ 38a Abs. I VRG)
Taxi Ordinance for Eco-Friendly Vehicles Upheld
Cited in relation to the costs of the proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
AN.2011.00004 · zh (§ 38a Abs. I VRG)
Challenge to Municipal Water Fee Ordinance Dismissed
This provision of the Administrative Procedure Act was cited, likely relating to the review of administrative acts.
AN.2012.00002 · zh (§ 38a Abs. I VRG)
Appeal Dismissed for Missed Statutory Deadline in Water Protection Ordinance Case
This provision governs the requirement for restoration of time limits, which was addressed and denied in the decision.
AN.2015.00002 · zh (§ 38a Abs. 1 VRG)
Tariff Challenge Dismissed for Lack of Standing and Scope Limitations
The court likely applied this procedural rule regarding the general admissibility or conduct of the appeal.
AN.2015.00003 · zh (§ 38a Abs. I VRG)
Challenge to Municipal Sewage Fee Ordinance Upheld
This provision is implicitly cited as part of the legal framework governing the fees reviewed by the court, which was found not to be violated.