TF, 08.04.2026, 1C_60/2025
Facts
A property owner, C., obtained a permit from the Municipality of Lugano to demolish a villa and construct a new single-family home with a garage, as well as to renovate an existing building on their plot (kkk). Access to this plot, located in a very low-density residential zone (R2B), is via a service road crossing plots mmm and nnn. Neighbors, A. and B.________, opposed the project. Their objections were rejected by the Municipality. They subsequently appealed to the Council of State of the Canton of Ticino, which partially upheld their appeal by annulling a minor part of the project (exterior landscaping on plot lll), but confirmed the substance of the demolition and construction permits. Upon appeal by the neighbors, the Cantonal Administrative Court rejected their petition. The neighbors have brought the case before the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the annulment of the cantonal ruling. (Facts A, B, C)
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the admissibility requirements for public law appeals (art. 82 LTF) and the requirement for sufficient substantiation (art. 42 and 106 para. 2 LTF), which requires appellants to demonstrate how the contested decision violates the law, particularly by being arbitrary (art. 9 Cst.) in the application of cantonal law. New facts and evidence are generally inadmissible (art. 99 para. 1 LTF). (c. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5)
Regarding access, the condition of sufficient urbanization of a plot (art. 22 para. 2 let. b LAT), which requires, among other things, sufficient access for the intended use (art. 19 para. 1 LAT). While federal law establishes the principles, it is up to cantonal and municipal law to define the detailed requirements. Access must be guaranteed both factually and legally at the time the permit is issued. Cantonal authorities enjoy a considerable margin of discretion in assessing local situations, which the Federal Supreme Court reviews only with restraint. (c. 3.1)
The Federal Supreme Court rejects criticisms regarding the road's alleged inadequacy (slope, width, curves). It notes that these criticisms challenge the 1993 municipal road planning, which can no longer be contested at this stage. Factually, the Federal Supreme Court upholds the lower court's assessment: given the low traffic volume, moderate speed, and existing infrastructure, safety is ensured and access is sufficient. The cantonal court's conclusion is not arbitrary. (c. 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3)
The appellants further challenged the legal sufficiency of the access. The Federal Supreme Court validates the cantonal court's reasoning: the road in question was declared to be in the public interest in 1960 and is classified as a public service road in the municipal traffic plan. It is therefore open to the public, which guarantees legal access to the plot to be developed. The appellants' arguments, described as merely appellate in nature, fail to demonstrate that this conclusion is arbitrary. (c. 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3)
Finally, the Federal Supreme Court dismisses the grievance regarding an alleged illegal embankment dating back to 1963. It finds that the appellants merely repeat their arguments without addressing the detailed reasoning of the cantonal court, which had dismissed this allegation based on historical verification. The grievance is therefore insufficiently substantiated and fails to demonstrate arbitrariness. (c. 5)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal to the extent that it is admissible. The court costs, set at 4,000 francs, are to be borne by the appellants. No legal fees are awarded, as no exchange of written submissions was ordered. The request for suspensive effect has become moot. (c. 6.1, 6.2, 1, 2, 3)
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Daniel Hirschi-Duckert, Attorney at Law
