Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 18.12.2025, 2C_702/2025
Facts
Following a request for administrative assistance from the Indian tax authorities, the Federal Tax Administration (FTA) decided to transmit banking information concerning A.________ (the appellant) to them. The appellant's appeals against the FTA's decision were successively rejected by the Federal Administrative Court (FAC) and then declared inadmissible by the Federal Supreme Court (FSC).
After the FTA transmitted the information to India, the appellant filed a request for revision of the FAC judgment, seeking, among other things, a declaration that the administrative assistance was unlawful. The FAC did not consider the request, finding that the appellant no longer had a current and practical interest in the revision, as the data had already been transmitted. The appellant has appealed this inadmissibility decision to the Federal Supreme Court.
Law
According toArt. 83(h) of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA), appeals in public law matters are inadmissible against decisions concerning international administrative assistance, with the exception of administrative assistance in tax matters. In the latter area,Art. 84a FSCA specifies that an appeal is only admissible if the case raises a legal issue of principle or if it is a particularly important case within the meaning ofArt. 84(2) FSCA. The appellant must demonstrate how these conditions are met.
A legal issue of principle exists if it is necessary to clarify a controversial legal question that is important for practice. A particularly important case may exist, in particular, in the event of a violation of fundamental procedural principles or serious procedural defects abroad.
Furthermore, standing to appeal (and to request a revision) requires a protectable interest, which must be current and practical at the time the judgment is rendered (Art. 89(1) FSCA).
Application to the present case
The Federal Supreme Court examines whether the admissibility requirements of Art. 84a FSCA are met.
First, the appellant argues that the question of whether a person retains a legitimate interest in establishing the illegality of a data transfer that has already occurred (to guard against a violation of the principle of purpose limitation or public policy) is a legal question of principle. The Federal Supreme Court rejects this argument. It recalls that there is consistent and well-established case law on the concept of current and practical interest, which also applies to revision proceedings. The appellant's criticism only concerns the application of these principles to her specific case and therefore does not raise a question requiring clarification by the highest judicial authority.
Second, the appellant claims that this is a particularly important case due to a threatened violation of fundamental guarantees (prohibition of retroactivity, public policy) by India. The Federal Supreme Court also dismisses this argument. It notes that the issue of the prohibition of retroactivity in the context of the double taxation agreement with India has already been addressed by its case law. Furthermore, these grievances had already been raised by the appellant in her first appeal proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court. However, grounds that could have been invoked in ordinary appeal proceedings cannot form the basis for a request for revision.
The Federal Supreme Court concludes that none of the alternative conditions of Art. 84a LTF are met.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court does not admit the appeal. The legal costs are charged to the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
