Federal Supreme Court, 24.02.2026, 9C_100/2026
Facts
Serafe AG successfully lifted the objection filed by A.________ in debt collection proceedings regarding radio and television license fees. A.________'s appeal against this decision was rejected by the Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM). Subsequently, the Federal Administrative Court (FAC) denied A.'s request for free legal aid, deeming the appeal to have no prospect of success. The FAC set a deadline for the payment of a CHF 1,000 advance on costs. A. has appealed this interlocutory decision denying legal aid to the Federal Supreme Court.
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the requirements for substantiating an appeal in public law matters (Art. 42 para. 1 and 2 LTF). The appellant must concisely explain how the contested decision violates the law. A heightened duty of substantiation applies when a violation of fundamental rights is alleged (Art. 106 para. 2 LTF): grievances must be raised and argued with precision. An appeal that clearly fails to meet these requirements is declared inadmissible under a simplified procedure (Art. 108 para. 1 let. b LTF). An appeal against an interlocutory decision denying legal aid is admissible, as it causes irreparable harm (Art. 93 para. 1 let. a LTF).
Application to the case
The Federal Supreme Court finds that the appellant has failed to sufficiently challenge the reasoning of the lower court. The FAC had deemed A.________'s appeal to have no prospect of success for several reasons:
- Possession of a receiving device has been irrelevant since the "opting out" option was abolished on January 1, 2019.
- The household fee does not violate the principle of taxation according to economic capacity (Art. 127 para. 2 Cst.) and, in any event, federal laws are binding on enforcement authorities (Art. 190 Cst.).
- Case law regarding the "flat tax" only applies to the corporate license fee.
The Federal Supreme Court notes that the appellant merely repeats the arguments made in the first instance (lack of a receiving device, violation of the principle of economic capacity) without explaining how the reasoning of the Federal Administrative Court is flawed. Their allegations are purely appellate in nature and do not meet the requirements for substantiation, particularly regarding constitutional grievances. The appeal is therefore manifestly insufficiently substantiated.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court does not admit the appeal. It waives court costs, rendering the request for legal aid for the federal proceedings moot.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
