Federal Supreme Court, 04.06.2026, 2C_285/2026
Facts
On March 1, 2022, the Italian tax authorities (Guardia di Finanza) submitted a request for administrative assistance to the Federal Tax Administration (FTA) regarding taxpayer A. Based on the Double Taxation Agreement between Switzerland and Italy (DTA CH-IT), the request sought information on the taxpayer's assets held at B. SA bank and any potential transfers to other accounts for the period from February 23, 2015, to December 31, 2020, in order to verify their tax status. The FTA ordered the bank to provide the information. In a final decision dated April 11, 2023, the FTA granted the assistance. A.________ appealed this decision to the Federal Administrative Court (FAC), which dismissed the appeal on April 21, 2026, rejecting in particular the claims regarding a violation of the principle of subsidiarity and the requirement of "foreseeable relevance." A.________ then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, primarily requesting the annulment of the FAC ruling and the refusal of assistance, and subsidiarily requesting the transmission of information after redacting data relating to a third-party company.
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the strict admissibility requirements for a public law appeal in the field of tax administrative assistance. According toArt. 83 let. h andArt. 84a of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA), such an appeal is only admissible if it raises a "legal question of principle" or if it concerns a "particularly important case" within the meaning ofArt. 84 para. 2 FSCA. A legal question of principle exists when it is necessary to clarify a new or controversial point of law whose resolution is decisive for legal practice. The mere application of well-established jurisprudential principles to a specific case does not constitute a question of principle. A case is considered particularly important—a standard applied with restraint—notably when there is concrete and credible evidence of a serious violation of fundamental procedural principles or major defects in the proceedings abroad. It is the responsibility of the appellant to demonstrate in detail that one of these conditions is met. (consid. 2.1, 2.2, 2.3)
Application to the Case
The Federal Supreme Court examines whether the appellant's arguments meet the requirements of Art. 84a FSCA. The appellant claimed that their case raised two legal questions of principle: first, the scope of the principle of subsidiarity in relation to the principle of good faith between states; and second, the limits of the "foreseeable relevance" requirement and the prohibition of "fishing expeditions." The Federal Supreme Court rejects these arguments, noting that it already has consistent and well-established case law on both points. Regarding subsidiarity, the case law has already clarified that the good faith of the requesting state is presumed and can only be overturned by concrete evidence, which the FAC did not find in this instance. Similarly, the criteria defining fishing expeditions have been specified numerous times, including in the context of the DTA CH-IT. The appellant merely criticizes the lower court's application of these principles to their specific case, which does not constitute a question of principle. Finally, the Federal Supreme Court finds that the condition of a particularly important case is also not met, as the appellant merely denounces a general "risk" to procedural guarantees without alleging a serious, concrete, and credible infringement of their fundamental rights. (consid. 2.4, 2.5, 2.6)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declares the public law appeal inadmissible. The admissibility requirements set out in Art. 84a FSCA (legal question of principle or particularly important case) are not met. The appeal raises no new legal question requiring clarification by the high court, and the appellant fails to demonstrate the existence of a serious violation of their procedural rights. The path of a subsidiary constitutional appeal is also excluded. Consequently, the request for suspensive effect becomes moot. The court costs, set at 5,000 CHF, are charged to the unsuccessful appellant. (consid. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3)
Silex Newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
