Permanent cableway closure: removal and affected land

§ 52 Abs. 3 SeilbG applies where operation ceases entirely and permanently. A seasonal shutdown or temporary closure alone does not establish permanent abandonment. Record the affected installation and whether the operator intends to resume. Existing closure decisions, operator statements, and installation plans help establish the position. Resuming operation after an authority has suspended it on safety grounds involves a different decision. Renewing an expiring concession also requires separate treatment. Establishing the facts allows you to identify the appropriate procedure and the consequences for the remaining installation.

If operation ceases entirely and permanently, the provincial governor decides under § 52 Abs. 3 SeilbG whether removal is required, its extent, and any further necessary measures. The governor must consider public interests, particularly public safety. Consequently, the specific proceedings require an assessment of stations, supports, foundations, and other affected components. Neither permanent closure nor a landowner’s request alone creates an unconditional entitlement to complete restoration to a natural state under this provision. Anyone seeking removal of a particular component or proposing that it remain should explain its location, condition, and the resulting safety issues in a comprehensible form.

§ 52 Abs. 2 SeilbG expressly grants party status alongside the cableway undertaking, in particular to owners of land used by the cableway. The specific use of the land is therefore decisive, and merely owning neighbouring land is insufficient under that wording. Owners should bring together the plot number, evidence of ownership, and the components situated on or otherwise using their land. Specific information about remaining components, access, and safety concerns is more useful for presenting their position than a general demand for the land to be returned. Party status does not confer a general veto over every removal decision, nor does it replace a separate examination of private contractual claims.

§ 52 Abs. 1 SeilbG requires documents showing the planned removal measures for any removal outside an extension or alteration project. The authority grants permission or orders removal and may prescribe supplementary measures. As preparation, a plan should distinguish components to be removed from those to remain and allocate them to the relevant plots. You should explain access for the works, their sequence and proposed safety measures insofar as relevant to the project. These examples are not an exhaustive statutory list of attachments. The authority assesses removal forming part of an extension or alteration within the building approval procedure, and the construction design must include it.

§ 52 Abs. 3 SeilbG charges the cableway undertaking, any legal successor, or the bankruptcy estate with the costs of removal measures. That rule does not impose these costs on a landowner simply because they own land used by the cableway. Before commissioning work, the operator and landowners should clarify which works the authority’s decision covers and who assumes obligations towards the contractor. The statutory allocation does not promise reimbursement for all personal advice, representation, or additional expenses. In insolvency, you should examine the legal allocation and practical funding or recovery separately, since naming the bankruptcy estate does not guarantee payment in full.

The authority’s specified extent of removal does not automatically resolve every issue stemming from a land-use agreement. Examine separately whether an agreement imposes additional restoration obligations and identify against whom such obligations might exist. The continued validity of registered land-use rights likewise hinges on the relevant instruments, as § 52 does not universally extinguish these rights. To ensure coordination, prepare a record for each plot that details ordered works, remaining components, unresolved contractual issues, and documented progress. Store the decision, plans, and photographs of the post-work condition together. This practice enables a targeted examination of discrepancies between the agreed return condition and the measures mandated by public law.