Federal Supreme Court, 29.01.2026, 2C_508/2025
Facts
The owners of a traditional village house in the canton of Valais carried out renovation work after obtaining a building permit. The building is located in a protected site of national importance (ISOS) and is listed in the municipal inventory with a "4+" rating, corresponding to an object of local importance.
Following the work, the owners applied for a subsidy from the canton of Valais. The cantonal department and subsequently the Council of State declared the application inadmissible, on the grounds that the building was of municipal importance and that the authority to grant subsidies therefore lay with the municipality. The Cantonal Court upheld this decision, specifying that the canton's intervention for such an object was subsidiary and required a prior decision by the municipal authority, which was absent in this case. The owners then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Law
The dispute concerns the canton's authority to grant a subsidy for the renovation of a protected building.
According to the Valais Act on the Protection of Nature, Landscape and Sites (LcPN):
- The canton subsidizes measures for objects of national and cantonal importance (art. 24 para. 1 LcPN).
- Municipalities bear the costs for objects of municipal importance (art. 24 para. 3bis LcPN).
- The canton may support measures for objects of municipal importance through subsidies, but its intervention is subsidiary (art. 24 para. 3ter LcPN).
The Federal Supreme Court reviews the interpretation and application of cantonal law only under the aspect of arbitrariness (art. 9 Cst.). A claim of arbitrariness must be clearly and detailedly substantiated (Art. 106 para. 2 LTF). A formal denial of justice (Art. 29 para. 1 Cst.) occurs when an authority fails to address an admissible request, but not when it issues a decision of inadmissibility based on procedural law.
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court upholds the lower court's analysis that the building in question is of communal, rather than cantonal or national, importance.
It finds that the Cantonal Court's interpretation of cantonal law is not arbitrary. The conclusion that the primary authority for subsidizing an object of communal importance lies with the municipality, and that cantonal intervention is merely subsidiary and contingent upon a prior municipal decision, is defensible. The appellants have failed to demonstrate how this interpretation would be untenable or violate a vested right.
The Federal Supreme Court also rejects the claim of denial of justice. The cantonal authorities were not passive; they issued a formal decision of inadmissibility based on their lack of jurisdiction. Issuing such a decision when the conditions for jurisdiction are not met does not constitute a denial of justice. The right of access to a court (Art. 29a Cst.) is respected, as the appellants had the appropriate legal remedy available, namely to address the municipal authority in the first instance.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the public law appeal and declares the subsidiary constitutional appeal inadmissible. The court costs are to be borne by the appellants.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
