Fine upheld for repeated use of agricultural land for storage

ATA/614/1998Court of Justice / Administrative ChamberSep 29, 1998Confirmed

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The court confirmed a CHF 5,000 administrative fine imposed on the parcel user for repeatedly and over several years using land in an agricultural zone to store construction machinery and materials. It held that the sanction complied with the principle of proportionality in light of the recurrent nature of the offence.

Omnilex headnote

LALAT.20; use of land contrary to zoning requirements in agricultural zone and proportionality of an administrative fine. Repeated and prolonged storage of construction machinery and materials on agricultural land constitutes a sanctionable non-compliant use. Where the infringement is recurrent over several years, a CHF 5,000 fine may be upheld as proportionate; the court will not interfere absent manifest excess or disproportionality.

Full text

Descripteurs

AMENAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE; AUTORISATION(EN GENERAL); AFFECTATION; ORDRE D'EVACUATION; ZONE AGRICOLE; SANCTION ADMINISTRATIVE; AMENDE; DIRECTIVE(INJONCTION); CONFORMITE A LA ZONE; RECIDIVE(INFRACTION); PROPORTIONNALITE; TPE

Normes

LALAT.20

Résumé

Confirmation d'une amende de CHF 5'000.- sanctionnant l'utilisateur, durant plusieurs années et de manière réitérée, d'une parcelle sise en zone agricole afin d'y déposer des engins et du matériel de chantier. Le principe de proportionnalité est respecté, compte tenu du caractère récidiviste du délit.

Keywords

planningagricultural zoneadministrative fineproportionalityrecidivismzoning complianceconstruction materials

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the CHF 5,000 administrative fine for non-compliant use of agricultural land should be upheld.

Extracted holding

The fine is upheld.

Extracted reasoning

The repeated and prolonged use of the parcel in agricultural zone for storage of construction equipment and materials justified the sanction.

Key legal question

Whether the sanction violated the principle of proportionality.

Extracted holding

No violation of proportionality was found.

Extracted reasoning

Given the recurrent nature of the infringement, the amount of the fine was considered proportionate.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.