ATA/796/1997•Restaurant terrace on public land must be authorized
ATA/796/1997Tribunal de Justiça / Câmara Administrativa23 de dez. de 1997Granted
Extraído pela Omnilex
The court held that the appeal no longer had a current interest as to the 1997 authorization because a request for 1998 was foreseeable. On the merits, however, it found that the pedestrian traffic at the site was modest and that the terrace should therefore be authorized. It also relied on equal treatment, noting that similar terraces had already been approved in the Pâquis area.
LEDP art. 19; restaurant terrace on the public domain; current interest and equal treatment. The requirement of a current practical interest may cease where the contested authorization concerns a period that will imminently be replaced by a new application. A terrace on public land must be admitted where the actual burden on pedestrian circulation is limited and the refusal would create unequal treatment compared with comparable terraces already authorized in the same area. Consid. 2-3.
Descripteurs
TERRASSE DE RESTAURANT; INTERET ACTUEL; USAGE COMMUN ACCRU; DOMAINE PUBLIC(PROPRIETE DE TOUS); EGALITE DE TRAITEMENT; VG
Normes
LEDP.19
Résumé
Dès lors que la recourante sollicitera vraisemblablement une autorisation en 1998, l'intérêt actuel au recours concernant l'autorisation pour 1997 peut être abandonné. Etant donné que le trafic de piétons à cet endroit est modeste, une terrasse doit être autorisée. De plus, la terrasse en cause est similaire à d'autres terrasses qui ont été autorisées aux Pâquis.
Extraído pela Omnilex
Whether the appeal still had a current practical interest regarding the 1997 terrace authorization.
The current interest could be abandoned because the appellant would likely seek authorization for 1998.
Since a new authorization request for the following year was foreseeable, the dispute over the 1997 authorization no longer required separate resolution.
Whether the restaurant terrace on the public domain had to be authorized despite increased common use.
Yes. Given the modest pedestrian traffic at the location, the terrace had to be authorized.
The court considered the intensity of pedestrian use limited and found no sufficient basis to refuse the terrace on that ground.
Whether equal treatment required allowing the terrace because similar terraces had already been authorized in Pâquis.
Yes. The terrace was similar to other terraces already authorized in Pâquis, so refusal would breach equal treatment.
Comparable treatment of similar situations required consistency with existing authorizations in the same area.
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.