Federal Supreme Court, 06.10.2025, 1C_107/2025
Facts
On June 14, 2021, the municipality of Ingenbohl (SZ) issued the building permit for the second phase of the lakeshore redevelopment project in the Schiffländeplatz sector of Brunnen. The first phase (Waldstätterquai sector) has already been completed.
An initial project was cancelled following an appeal by the appellant, who rents a restaurant and a pier nearby, due to its impact on groundwater. The municipality submitted a revised project, which was approved by the Schwyz cantonal authorities despite a new objection from the appellant. Subsequent appeals by the latter to the Regierungsrat and then to the Verwaltungsgericht of the canton of Schwyz were rejected. The appellant has now appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, requesting that the decision be overturned and the building permit denied.
The project aims to create a uniform, barrier-free space featuring stone paving, a double row of plane trees to replace existing parking spaces, and a lakeside staircase providing access to the water. It also includes a reorganization of mooring spaces.
Legal Analysis
Under the Federal Act on the Protection of Nature and Cultural Heritage (NCHA), sites of national importance listed in a federal inventory, such as the Federal Inventory of Swiss Heritage Sites (ISOS) or the Federal Inventory of Landscapes and Natural Monuments of National Importance (IFP), are entitled to the highest possible level of protection (Art. 6 NCHA). In the event of a significant impact on such a site, an expert opinion from the Federal Commission for the Protection of Nature and Cultural Heritage (FCNP) or the Federal Commission for Monument Preservation (FCMP) must be requested. It is the responsibility of the specialized cantonal office to determine whether such an opinion is necessary (Art. 7 NCHA).
Art. 18 NCHA protects biotopes, particularly riparian zones. If an impact is unavoidable, the party responsible must implement protection, restoration, or replacement measures. Art. 21 NCHA prohibits the destruction of riparian vegetation.
Application to the Case
The Federal Supreme Court examined the appellant's three main grievances:
- Violation of ISOS protection objectives (Art. 6 and 7 NCHA): The project is located within an ISOS zone. The Federal Supreme Court upheld the assessment of the cantonal authorities and the specialized office, finding that the project complies with ISOS objectives. It enhances the promenade by removing parking spaces and creating a tree-lined avenue, thereby improving public use. The impact was deemed not significant, rendering an expert opinion from the FCNP/FCMP unnecessary (consideration 3).
- Impact on a protected riparian zone (Art. 18 and 21 NCHA): The appellant argued that the project would destroy a shallow-water area housing aquatic vegetation. Based on expert reports and the opinion of the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the Federal Supreme Court noted that the shoreline in question is already heavily artificialized and does not constitute a riparian zone particularly worthy of protection under the law. The vegetation there is very sparse and non-characteristic. Furthermore, certain project measures, such as riprap, could potentially even slightly improve the habitat for fish. The Federal Supreme Court therefore concluded that there was no violation of Art. 18 and 21 NCHA (consideration 4).
- Violation of IFP protection objectives: The appellant argued that the project contravenes the objectives of the IFP inventory. The Federal Supreme Court rejected this grievance, noting that since the shoreline is already artificialized and lacks characteristic shallow-water areas or underwater meadows, the IFP's natural environment protection objectives are not violated. The aspect of built heritage protection was already addressed within the framework of the ISOS analysis (consideration 5).
The Federal Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts did not violate federal law in granting the building permit.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The legal costs are to be borne by the appellant. No legal fees were awarded.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Daniel Hirschi-Duckert, Attorney at Law
