-
- Art. 5a FC
- Art. 6 FC
- Art. 10 FC
- Art. 16 FC
- Art. 17 FC
- Art. 20 FC
- Art. 22 FC
- Art. 29a FC
- Art. 30 FC
- Art. 32 FC
- Art. 42 FC
- Art. 43 FC
- Art. 43a FC
- Art. 55 FC
- Art. 56 FC
- Art. 60 FC
- Art. 68 FC
- Art. 75b FC
- Art. 77 FC
- Art. 96 para. 2 lit. a FC
- Art. 110 FC
- Art. 117a FC
- Art. 118 FC
- Art. 123b FC
- Art. 136 FC
- Art. 166 FC
-
- Art. 11 CO
- Art. 12 CO
- Art. 50 CO
- Art. 51 CO
- Art. 84 CO
- Art. 143 CO
- Art. 144 CO
- Art. 145 CO
- Art. 146 CO
- Art. 147 CO
- Art. 148 CO
- Art. 149 CO
- Art. 150 CO
- Art. 701 CO
- Art. 715 CO
- Art. 715a CO
- Art. 734f CO
- Art. 785 CO
- Art. 786 CO
- Art. 787 CO
- Art. 788 CO
- Transitional provisions to the revision of the Stock Corporation Act of June 19, 2020
- Art. 808c CO
-
- Art. 2 PRA
- Art. 3 PRA
- Art. 4 PRA
- Art. 6 PRA
- Art. 10 PRA
- Art. 10a PRA
- Art. 11 PRA
- Art. 12 PRA
- Art. 13 PRA
- Art. 14 PRA
- Art. 15 PRA
- Art. 16 PRA
- Art. 17 PRA
- Art. 19 PRA
- Art. 20 PRA
- Art. 21 PRA
- Art. 22 PRA
- Art. 23 PRA
- Art. 24 PRA
- Art. 25 PRA
- Art. 26 PRA
- Art. 27 PRA
- Art. 29 PRA
- Art. 30 PRA
- Art. 31 PRA
- Art. 32 PRA
- Art. 32a PRA
- Art. 33 PRA
- Art. 34 PRA
- Art. 35 PRA
- Art. 36 PRA
- Art. 37 PRA
- Art. 38 PRA
- Art. 39 PRA
- Art. 40 PRA
- Art. 41 PRA
- Art. 42 PRA
- Art. 43 PRA
- Art. 44 PRA
- Art. 45 PRA
- Art. 46 PRA
- Art. 47 PRA
- Art. 48 PRA
- Art. 49 PRA
- Art. 50 PRA
- Art. 51 PRA
- Art. 52 PRA
- Art. 53 PRA
- Art. 54 PRA
- Art. 55 PRA
- Art. 56 PRA
- Art. 57 PRA
- Art. 58 PRA
- Art. 59a PRA
- Art. 59b PRA
- Art. 59c PRA
- Art. 62 PRA
- Art. 63 PRA
- Art. 67 PRA
- Art. 67a PRA
- Art. 67b PRA
- Art. 75 PRA
- Art. 75a PRA
- Art. 76 PRA
- Art. 76a PRA
- Art. 90 PRA
-
- Vorb. zu Art. 1 FADP
- Art. 1 FADP
- Art. 2 FADP
- Art. 3 FADP
- Art. 5 lit. f und g FADP
- Art. 6 Abs. 6 and 7 FADP
- Art. 7 FADP
- Art. 10 FADP
- Art. 11 FADP
- Art. 12 FADP
- Art. 14 FADP
- Art. 15 FADP
- Art. 19 FADP
- Art. 20 FADP
- Art. 22 FADP
- Art. 23 FADP
- Art. 25 FADP
- Art. 26 FADP
- Art. 27 FADP
- Art. 31 para. 2 lit. e FADP
- Art. 33 FADP
- Art. 34 FADP
- Art. 35 FADP
- Art. 38 FADP
- Art. 39 FADP
- Art. 40 FADP
- Art. 41 FADP
- Art. 42 FADP
- Art. 43 FADP
- Art. 44 FADP
- Art. 44a FADP
- Art. 45 FADP
- Art. 46 FADP
- Art. 47 FADP
- Art. 47a FADP
- Art. 48 FADP
- Art. 49 FADP
- Art. 50 FADP
- Art. 51 FADP
- Art. 54 FADP
- Art. 57 FADP
- Art. 58 FADP
- Art. 60 FADP
- Art. 61 FADP
- Art. 62 FADP
- Art. 63 FADP
- Art. 64 FADP
- Art. 65 FADP
- Art. 66 FADP
- Art. 67 FADP
- Art. 69 FADP
- Art. 72 FADP
- Art. 72a FADP
-
- Art. 2 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 3 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 4 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 5 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 6 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 7 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 8 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 9 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 11 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 12 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 25 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 29 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 32 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 33 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 34 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
CODE OF OBLIGATIONS
FEDERAL LAW ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
LUGANO CONVENTION
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
FEDERAL ACT ON POLITICAL RIGHTS
CIVIL CODE
FEDERAL ACT ON CARTELS AND OTHER RESTRAINTS OF COMPETITION
FEDERAL ACT ON INTERNATIONAL MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
DEBT ENFORCEMENT AND BANKRUPTCY ACT
FEDERAL ACT ON DATA PROTECTION
SWISS CRIMINAL CODE
CYBERCRIME CONVENTION
- I. History of origins
- II. Significance of the provision
- III. Commentary on the text of the norm
- Bibliography and Materials
I. History of origins
1 Art. 67a PRA - like Art. 67 and 67b PRA - originates from an amendment to the Federal Act of 1996. Reference is therefore made to the commentary on Art. 67 PRA.
II. Significance of the provision
A. General
2 Art. 67a PRA contains the formal requirements for a cantonal referendum. They apply regardless of whether the referendum request is based on the subsidiary Art. 67 PRA or on cantonal law. As with the popular initiative, the written form and the precise designation of the enactment to be voted on are required.
B. Comparison of laws
3 Cantons in which there is a municipal referendum know provisions on formal requirements comparable to Art. 67b PRA. Basel-Land specifically requires the designation of the lead municipality. Graubünden and Jura check compliance with the deadline and generally with the formal requirements. Lucerne has specific formal requirements that are very similar to Art. 67b PRA and, moreover, require that a representative of the municipalities be designated. Solothurn requires, among other things, an excerpt from the minutes and otherwise declares the provisions on the popular initiative to be applicable mutatis mutandis. The Canton of Ticino requires the designation of a representative and otherwise refers to the provisions on the popular referendum. As far as can be seen, Zurich does not have any express formal provisions for the municipal referendum, but does require the designation of a representative.
III. Commentary on the text of the norm
A. Letter (introductory sentence)
4 According to the introductory sentence, the cantonal government shall inform the federal government in writing that the canton supports a cantonal referendum. The designation of this body in federal law is noteworthy, given that the subsidiary provision of Article 67 of the PRA provides that the cantonal parliament is responsible for taking the cantonal referendum. Moreover, almost all cantons have designated the cantonal parliament in their law. However, the governments basically represent their cantons vis-à-vis the outside world. Overall, it would have been more federalism-friendly not to designate a specific body, but simply to speak of a "letter of the canton". Since this is a regulatory provision, a letter that does not originate from the cantonal government but from the body responsible for taking the cantonal referendum would nevertheless be considered legally valid.
5 The recipient of the letter is the Federal Chancellery, which also establishes that the cantonal referendum has come about.
B. Clear citation of the federal decree (lit. a)
6 This provision requires that the enactment title and the date of adoption by the Federal Constitution be mentioned in the letter. It serves to identify the federal decree in question beyond doubt.
C. Deciding body (lit. b)
7 The letter must name the body that requests the referendum on behalf of the canton. This allows the Federal Chancellery to verify whether the cantonal referendum actually originates from the competent organ (cf. lit. c). According to the dispatch, the formal requirement is necessary because federal law regulates the organ responsible for the cantonal referendum only in a subsidiary manner.
D. Provisions of cantonal law (lit. c)
8 The letter must also contain the provisions of cantonal law that regulate which body is responsible for taking the cantonal referendum. This enables the Federal Chancellery to check whether it is the same body that decided on the cantonal referendum (cf. lit. b). If there were no cantonal regulation, this would have to be noted in the letter and reference made to Art. 67 PRA.
E. Date and result of the referendum decision (lit. d)
9 The letter from the canton must contain the date of the referendum decision (date of the decision of the cantonal parliament or government or date of the referendum). This enables the Federal Chancellery to determine whether the resolution was issued within the referendum deadline. However, timely submission to the Federal Chancellery is also required in order to meet the deadline.
10 Furthermore, according to lit. d, the canton must indicate the result of the referendum decision. The dispatch does not comment on what exactly is meant by this. Is it only the approval or rejection of a referendum petition by the competent body? Or is the "result" the exact outcome of the vote (votes in favor, votes against and abstentions)? The argument against the former interpretation is that a letter in which it is left open whether a canton submits a referendum request is hardly conceivable. However, the interpretation according to which the canton must report the exact result of the referendum to the Federal Chancellery is also not entirely convincing. Either a canton seizes the cantonal referendum or it does not - the majority ratios in the decision are irrelevant. Moreover, if the cantonal government is the competent body, no voting result can be disclosed at all, as this would violate the principle of collegiality. In practice, the Federal Chancellery seems to assume that the exact result of the vote is meant by the result. In the case of the successful cantonal referendum against the tax package, it even indicated this in the decree (except in the case of the canton of St. Gallen, where the cantonal government took the decision). In the case of the failed cantonal referendum against the FATCA agreement, it criticized the absence of the "result of the decision of the Grand Council" although it obviously interpreted the letter of the canton of Valais as the taking of the cantonal referendum. In the case of the unsuccessful cantonal referendum against the determination of the basic contributions of the resource equalization, she only stated that the "result of the referendum decision" was reflected in the letters of the four cantons. In any case, the formal requirement demands at a minimum that the letter clearly state that the canton demands a referendum.
F. Regulatory requirement, not ground for invalidity
11 Art. 67a PRA is to be qualified as a regulatory provision. Its violation is not an independent ground for invalidity. Art. 67b para. 2 PRA does not list the violation of a formal requirement (according to Art. 67a PRA) as a ground for invalidity. For a referendum petition to be invalid, there must (also) be a ground for invalidity pursuant to Art. 67b para. 2 PRA.
12 The following example illustrates the legal situation: In an unsuccessful cantonal referendum of the Canton of Valais in 2013, the canton mentioned the FATCA agreement between Switzerland and the United States as the subject matter, but not the date of the federal decree (Art. 67a lit. a PRA). Furthermore, the information on the provisions of cantonal law on jurisdiction (Art. 67a lit. c) and on the outcome of the referendum decision (Art. 67a lit. d) was missing. The Federal Chancellery expressly left open whether the formal requirements under federal law had been fulfilled, because the quorum of eight cantons had been missed anyway. However, at the same time it decreed that "only" the canton of Valais had demanded a referendum in due time, thus seeming to assume the validity of the Valais referendum petition. Rightly so, because there was no reason for invalidity according to Art. 67b para. 2 PRA: The deadline had been met (lit. a), the cantonal body with subject-matter jurisdiction had taken the decision (which could be verified despite the failure to indicate the cantonal legal basis and the "result of the referendum decision"; lit. b) and it was clear (despite the absence of the date of the federal decision) for which enactment the referendum had been requested (lit. c).
Acknowledgements: The author thanks Rahel Freiburghaus and Christoph Lanz for their review and valuable comments.
Author: Dr. iur. Matthias Lanz, LL.M. (Cantab.), Legal Assistant at the Department of Finance and Municipalities of the Grisons, former Personal Assistant to the President of the Conference of Cantonal Governments, www.linkedin.com/in/matthiaslanz
Bibliography and Materials
See the bibliography and list of materials for the commentary on Art. 67 PRA.