TF, 13.02.2026, 2C_249/2025
Facts
In the context of an administrative assistance request from India concerning C., the Federal Tax Administration (FTA) authorized the transmission of banking information. C. appealed this decision to the Federal Administrative Court (FAC).
Subsequently, A.A.________ and B.A.________ (the appellants), having learned that their names, as well as those of a deceased relative and an associated company, appeared in the documents to be transmitted, wrote to the FAC. They requested to be recognized as parties to C.'s appeal proceedings in order to oppose the transmission of their data.
The FAC treated their letter not as a request for intervention, but as a new appeal against the initial FTA decision. It subsequently declared this "appeal" inadmissible, on the grounds that the appellants lacked standing and that their action was time-barred. The appellants have appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the conditions for participating in administrative assistance proceedings in tax matters (governed by the TAAA and the APA).
Standing to appeal is granted to the "person concerned" by the request (art. 19 para. 2 TAAA). "Other persons" (third parties) may only appeal if they meet the conditions ofart. 48 APA, in particular that of having a legitimate interest in the cancellation or modification of the decision.
According to case law (BGE 146 I 172), the mere fact that a third party's name is mentioned in the documentation to be transmitted is not sufficient to confer such a legitimate interest. The right to informational self-determination (art. 8 ECHR, art. 13 Const.does not, in itself, establish party status in this specific proceeding.
An appeal brief must, according toArt. 52 para. 1 APA, contain formal requests for relief, which serve to define the subject matter of the dispute.
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court finds that the Federal Administrative Court (FAC) committed a procedural error. The appellants' letter did not contain requests for relief against the FTA's decision, but explicitly requested recognition of their party status in the already pending proceeding. The FAC should therefore have treated this letter as a request to participate in the proceeding rather than as a new appeal. By classifying it as an "appeal," the FAC violated Art. 52 para. 1 APA.
However, the Federal Supreme Court then examined the merits of the issue: did the appellants have a protectable interest in participating in the proceeding? Relying solely on the fact that their names appeared in the documents, the appellants do not meet the conditions established by case law for being granted party status. The fact that they are heirs of another person mentioned does not change this conclusion, as the latter is also a third party to the proceeding.
Consequently, even though the FAC erred in classifying the request as an "appeal" and declaring it inadmissible, its conclusion on the merits—namely that the appellants did not have the status to participate in the proceeding—is correct. The procedural error therefore had no impact on the appellants' substantive position.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. It upholds the FAC's decision, albeit with substituted grounds, and orders the appellants to pay the court costs.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
