Federal Supreme Court, 22.12.2025, 9C_102/2025
Facts
Dr. A.________, a pathologist in the canton of St. Gallen, requested an exemption from the on-call duty replacement tax for 2020, arguing that he already provided specialized on-call services. His request was rejected successively by the local medical association and the St. Gallen Cantonal Medical Association (hereinafter: the cantonal association), which confirmed his obligation to pay the tax in a formal decision.
After his appeal to the Cantonal Department of Health was unsuccessful, Dr. A.________ appealed to the Administrative Court of the canton of St. Gallen. The court granted his appeal, overturning the previous decisions and releasing him from the obligation to pay the tax. The cantonal association then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against this judgment.
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the principle of legality regarding public contributions (art. 127 para. 1 Cst.). This constitutional principle requires that the essential elements of a public contribution—namely the circle of taxpayers, the object of the contribution, and the method of calculation—must be defined in broad terms by a law in the formal sense.
When the authority to levy a contribution is delegated to a private organization tasked with a public duty, as is the case here for the cantonal association, the formal law itself must establish these essential elements. A simple delegation without sufficient framework does not meet constitutional requirements. The Federal Supreme Court reviews compliance with this principle freely, but only reviews the interpretation of cantonal law under the aspect of arbitrariness (art. 9 Cst.).
Application to the Case
The Federal Supreme Court examines whether the decision of the cantonal Administrative Court, which deemed the legal basis for the replacement tax insufficient, is arbitrary.
The cantonal Health Act (GesG/SG) broadly defines the circle of persons subject to on-call duty (all physicians holding a license to practice). However, it merely authorizes the cantonal association to exempt physicians from this obligation and to impose a replacement tax in return (art. 50ter GesG/SG). The law does not define, even in broad terms, the criteria for exemption or, consequently, the circle of persons liable for this tax. It delegates this task entirely to the cantonal association, which regulates it in its own bylaws, which are not laws in the formal sense.
The Federal Supreme Court rules that this delegation is too broad and violates the principle of legality. The formal law should have at least established the fundamental principles governing exemption and liability for the replacement tax. The cantonal association's argument that the circle of taxpayers follows implicitly from the system (those exempted from duty are liable) is insufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirements that demand a basis in formal law.
Furthermore, the Federal Supreme Court notes that even the association's bylaws lack clarity and predictability regarding the grounds for exemption, granting its bodies overly broad discretionary power.
The Administrative Court's conclusion that there is no sufficient legal basis to levy the replacement tax on Dr. A.________ is therefore not arbitrary.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal filed by the St. Gallen Cantonal Medical Association. The decision of the Cantonal Administrative Court is upheld. The legal costs are to be borne by the appellant association, which must also pay legal fees to Dr. A.________.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
