RRE Nr. 387•Administrative decision lacked reasoning and dispositive on objection
RRE Nr. 387Altro tribunale18 feb 1992Annulled
Estratto da Omnilex
The Federal Court held that, under the minimum standards of administrative procedure derived from Art. 4 BV and the Lucerne VRG, the authority had to examine ex officio whether the cheesemaking cooperative was entitled to lodge an objection. The challenged decision mentioned the cooperative as objector but gave no reasons on its standing, contained no dispositive ruling on that objection, and was not served on the cooperative. These defects breached the duty to state reasons, the requirement that all party requests be decided in the dispositive, and the service rule.
Art. 4 BV; §§ 107 Abs. 2 lit. d, 108 Abs. 2, 110 Abs. 1 lit. c and 11 Abs. 1 VRG LU; administrative decision must ex officio examine the party's standing to act and must dispose of all requests in the dispositive. Where a person is mentioned in the factual findings as objector but the reasoning contains no assessment of its legitimacy and no interlocutory decision was rendered on that point, the duty to state reasons is violated. Omission of any dispositive ruling on the objection further infringes the rule that all party requests be decided. Non-service of the decision to the person concerned constitutes an additional procedural defect. These deficiencies justify annulment of the decision (consid. not stated).
Aufgrund seiner Auslegung des Willkürverbots und des Grundsatzes der Rechtsgleichheit hat das Bundesgericht aus Art. 4 der Bundesverfassung (BV) einen Mindeststandard für die Verwaltungsrechtspflege abgeleitet. Die entsprechenden Vorschriften, welche beim Erlass einer Verfügung oder eines Entscheids zu beachten sind, sind im Kanton Luzern im Gesetz über die Verwaltungsrechtspflege (VRG) festgehalten. Dazu gehört u. a. die Vorschrift von § 107 Abs. 2 lit. d VRG, wonach die Behörde von Amtes wegen prüft, ob die Befugnis zu einer Rechtsvorkehr gegeben ist.
Aus der Vernehmlassung vom 23. September ergibt sich, dass die Pachtrechtskommission des Kantons Luzern anfänglich davon ausging, dass die Käsereigenossenschaft zur Einsprache nicht berechtigt sei. Obwohl im Sachverhalt des angefochtenen Entscheids die Käsereigenossenschaft als Einsprecherin erwähnt wird, fehlen in der Begründung Ausführungen zu deren Legitimation. Nachdem auch ein Zwischenentscheid, der gemäss § 107 Abs. 1 VRG möglich wäre, in dieser Frage nicht gefällt wurde, verletzt der angefochtene Entscheid die Begründungspflicht (§ 110 Abs. 1 lit. c VRG). Im Dispositiv des angefochtenen Entscheids fehlt im übrigen der Rechtsspruch in bezug auf die Einsprache der Käsereigenossenschaft. Damit widerspricht der angefochtene Entscheid weiter der Vorschrift von § 108 Abs. 2 VRG, wonach alle Anträge der Parteien im Rechtsspruch zu erledigen sind. Ferner wurde der angefochtene Entscheid der Käsereigenossenschaft nicht zugestellt, was zusätzlich der Vorschrift von § 11 Abs. 1 VRG widerspricht.
Estratto da Omnilex
Whether the authority had to examine ex officio the legal capacity to object
Yes. The authority had to verify ex officio whether a party was entitled to take a legal step.
Under the minimum standards of administrative justice derived from Art. 4 BV and reflected in the Lucerne VRG, § 107(2)(d) requires ex officio review of the right to take a procedural act.
Whether the challenged decision violated the duty to state reasons by omitting any discussion of the cooperative's standing
Yes. The decision was insufficiently reasoned because it mentioned the cooperative as objector but gave no reasons on its standing.
Although the facts referred to the cooperative as objector, the reasoning contained no analysis of its legitimacy to object; moreover, no interlocutory decision under § 107(1) VRG resolved that point.
Whether the dispositive had to rule on the cooperative's objection
Yes. All party requests must be resolved in the dispositive, including the cooperative's objection.
Because the dispositive contained no ruling on the objection, the decision contravened § 108(2) VRG.
Whether failure to serve the decision on the cooperative was unlawful
Yes. Non-service to the cooperative breached the applicable service rule.
The decision was not notified to the cooperative, contrary to § 11(1) VRG.
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.