Federal Supreme Court, 29.04.2026, 9C_258/2026
Facts
Serafe AG, the radio and television license fee collection agency, initiated debt enforcement proceedings against A.________ for the amount of CHF 645, representing the household license fee for the period from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022, plus CHF 35 in reminder and enforcement fees. Following the debtor's objection, Serafe AG issued a decision on July 20, 2023, lifting the objection and ordering payment. A.________'s subsequent appeals to the Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM) and then to the Federal Administrative Court were rejected, with the latter issuing a judgment on February 26, 2026. A.________ then filed a submission with the Federal Supreme Court on April 1, 2026, confirming his intent to appeal on April 23, 2026, after being invited to do so by the court. (consid. 1.1, 1.2)
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the requirements for substantiating an appeal in public law matters. According toArt. 42 para. 1 and 2 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA), the appeal must contain requests for relief and the grounds for the appeal. The appellant must concisely explain how the contested decision violates the law, referring to the admissible grounds for appeal provided for in Art. 95 et seq. FSCA. A heightened standard of substantiation applies to the violation of fundamental rights, which must be invoked and motivated with precision (Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA). Furthermore, the lower court correctly noted that criticisms regarding the editorial content of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SBC) publications do not constitute a legal basis for exemption from the obligation to pay the license fee. (consid. 2.1, 2.2)
Application to the specific case
In his appeal, the appellant contests neither the principle of the household license fee nor the legal basis set out by the lower court. His grievances focus exclusively on the conduct of the SBC, which he accuses of abuse of power, a lack of impartiality in its reporting, and a lack of respect for divergent opinions. The Federal Supreme Court finds, like the lower court, that such criticisms of program content, whether general or directed at specific broadcasts, do not constitute grounds for release from the obligation to pay the license fee. For such complaints, the appropriate legal channel is to petition the Independent Complaints Authority for Radio and Television (ICA). The appeal therefore clearly lacks sufficient motivation in relation to the subject of the dispute, namely the obligation to pay the license fee. (consid. 2.3)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court, ruling under the simplified procedure, declares the appeal inadmissible due to manifestly insufficient motivation (Art. 108 para. 1 let. b FSCA). Consequently, the court costs, set at CHF 500, are charged to the unsuccessful appellant (Art. 66 para. 1 FSCA). (consid. 1, 2, 3 of the operative part)
Silex Tax Newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
