Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook

His appeals cost him 50'000 Swiss francs

Cla Semadeni has only exercised his right. Now he is 50'000 Swiss francs court to pay the fees. The 71-year-old dübendorf fought with all means against the inn

- 30 reads.

His appeals cost him 50'000 Swiss francs

Cla Semadeni has only exercised his right. Now he is 50'000 Swiss francs court to pay the fees. The 71-year-old dübendorf fought with all means against the innovation Park is to be built a few Hundred meters from his house. He spoke at a half-dozen Federal agencies, the city of dübendorf and the Canton and multiple voting submitted legal complaints to the district Council. Has cost him the time. Expensive the process against the design plan before the construction appeals court has been.

Is one that takes a lot of effort, a troublemaker? Who keeps several hours with Semadeni, receives a different impression. And also persons in the various Offices, which employs Semadeni, with its concerns, saying there is a consensus that He was indeed unpleasant, persistent, have lost maybe. Not that he was a troublemaker. He did not know what he is talking about.

The resume is confirmed by a glance at Semadenis. The Bündner studied at the ETH Zurich architecture and urbanism. Later, he worked as a city planner in the train, was the chief of the Department in dübendorf, Deputy Director of the city planning in Zurich, and finally 14 years as a cantonal planner, in the Grisons.

Constitution want low cost

save time and nerves cost him this fight. To a lawyer, and he has refused so far, also in the procedure before the planning appeals Tribunal, which he runs together with Walter Mundt, who lives next to the airfield. With the court fees of CHF 50'000, the construction appeals court has exhausted the allowed by the law Fees. For the first Time ever, as law firm boss Martina Hemerka, on request, says. On average, the fees would be around 5000 Swiss francs. Of the 356 completed cases in the year 2018, the court demanded in six cases, at least 20'000 Swiss francs, in eight cases between 10'000 and 20'000 Swiss francs.

images: As the innovation Park once

should look like The court fees do not cover the actual costs of the authority. This is intended by the legislator. In article 18 of the Zurich cantonal Constitution: "Every Person has the prior court and administrative instances, entitled to speedy and inexpensive execution of the procedure." The dictionary gives as synonyms for the outdated word "cheap" "cheap" or "almost paid". Accordingly surprised many lawyers are in Zurich, in the construction and planning law, and to do regularly with the construction course court have, when you hear of the high court fees in the proceedings of Cla Semadeni respond.

In the ruling, the construction appeals court justified the high fees with the amount in dispute, the "cannot be valued highly enough". In addition, the process was time-consuming because the Appellant had made several entries. During the procedure you have explained to you the cost of possible high procedure. This Semadeni and Mundt confirm. However, they had the feeling that they wanted to put pressure on their appeal to withdraw. "We feel the court not being treated fairly," says Semadeni. Also, the the judge with the parties to the proceedings were carried out, would have made the President of the court clear early on that they had no Chance.

Factional judge

About the court fees, the three planning appeals judges were not in agreement. The minority the request of a judge or of a judge is the judgment added, had demanded the charges to 20'000 Swiss francs. The value in dispute, the minority holds the opinion that the economic Benefit of the Canton, to realize the design plan, is many times greater than that of the Appellants, if they prevent the design plan. This should be taken into account, otherwise, could afford Private for large construction projects with a high value no recourses. With respect to the effort it means he's been great, but could not be the sole criterion of the Measure of the fees. The cost otherwise would have had a prohibitive effect. That means that the Appellant could be held due to the expected high cost, to take legal means what the Federal Constitution to the contrary. The fees and the minority opinion has not released the construction appellate court, in contrast to the rest of the sentence.


Also affected, if the charges are in the case of Semadeni and Mundt exceptionally high: The high costs at Zurich's Baur course court among lawyers has long been an issue, as a survey of a half-dozen construction and planning lawyers. "For us, it has become more difficult, clients to give reliable forecasts about the cost," says Martin Pestalozzi, who has 40 years in the Zurich RUTI worked as a lawyer. For many, this is crucial if you are considering to take recourse against a construction project. Pestalozzi, has resulted in many cantons processes, says Zurich's Baur course the court was in respect of fees, in comparison to other cantons very expensive for the party to be compensation often deep. This makes a comparison of costs difficult. "The General impression is, however, that it is in Zurich in the past ten years, considerably more expensive to recourse against construction projects – especially against large," says Pestalozzi.

"The increase in court costs for a class justice."Isaac Meier, Emeritus Professor of civil law Professor of the University of Zurich

The charges are not only for individuals but also for associations, sometimes so high that they threaten their existence, says Pestalozzi. This shows another example Of disabled people's umbrella organisation, complains the court loses against the new double-Decker trains, and must also compensate SBB and Bombardier, each with 126'000 Swiss francs. "The financing of such procedures represents a major challenge," says the spokesman for the disabled Association Inclusion Handicap, drew the SBB in court. Not infrequently, they would fail due to the lack of financial resources. The disability umbrella Association yesterday moved the high party compensation of a total of 252'000 Swiss francs to the Federal Supreme court, as he confirmed on request.

case is confirmed

Pestalozzi's impression drawn by the Zurich lawyer, Claudia Steiger, although it speaks of a significant rise in the cost. You don't see a benefit in it, if the costs are too deep: "It holds the potential Appellant, to examine the prospects of success of an appeal is effective." For many builders it has become difficult to build, because you would have to always expect more and more appeals.

Tobias Jaag believes that many of the appeals to be filed in order to delay construction projects. In General, it is a matter of legitimate concern for the legal protection of the claim may be, says the now-retired government Professor of law at the University of Zurich. Jaag estimates the number of clearly abusive recourses to as "vanishingly small". In such a case, the courts would have the ability to charge higher fees. At the time of acceptance of abusive procedure, however, is attached to the restraint. In General, the constitutionally guaranteed access to courts must be taken into account.

Therein Jaag goes with his colleague of many years, Isaac Meier agreed, analysed the development of costs in civil litigation. "The increase in court costs will lead to a class justice." Today, it could be rich, in many cases, only very or very poor citizen afford to litigate. The a, because you don't have enough money, the other because the state assumes the cost for you. The SME sector is made difficult of access to the courts, says Meier.

administrative court will decide

So far in the field of construction and planning law and, more generally, in public law, not yet, says Jaag. In contrast to the civil process law, there are no studies.

Whether the dübendorf Semadeni and Mundt have to pay the 50'000 Swiss francs, in fact, is still unclear. You have pulled the case – with legal assistance – to the administrative court. This now has to content not only on the Objections to the design and master plan for the innovation Park to decide, but also whether it was justified, the Appellant, the maximum court fees. (Tages-Anzeiger)

Created: 10.01.2019, 06:15 PM

Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.