Federal Supreme Court, 09.04.2026, 9C_30/2026
Facts
In January 2019, Serafe AG billed A.________ (the appellant) for the radio and television license fee. The appellant, a recipient of social assistance benefits, requested an exemption. His request was rejected by Serafe AG on July 29, 2024, which identified a debt of CHF 1,657.10 for the period from January 2019 to November 2023 and initiated debt collection proceedings.
The appellant's appeal against this decision was rejected successively by the Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM) on April 24, 2025, and then by the Federal Administrative Court (FAC) on November 19, 2025. The appellant then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court. He primarily requests that the unconstitutionality of the exemption conditions provided for by the Federal Act on Radio and Television (RTVA) be established and, alternatively, that he be fully exempted from the fee.
Law
The dispute concerns the interpretation and constitutionality ofArt. 69b para. 1 let. a of the Federal Act on Radio and Television (RTVA). This provision provides for an exemption from the fee, upon request, only for persons receiving annual supplementary benefits (PC) to OASI/DI. The law does not mention social assistance recipients as a category of persons eligible for exemption.
A central legal point of the case is the scope ofArt. 190 of the Federal Constitution (Cst.). According to established case law, this article requires the Federal Supreme Court and other authorities to apply federal laws, even if they are deemed contrary to the Constitution. A constitutionally compliant interpretation is only possible if the legal text is ambiguous. If the text is clear, it must be applied as is, and the Federal Supreme Court can only invite the legislature to amend it.
Finally, the Federal Supreme Court recalls the concept of abuse of discretion, which occurs when an authority relies on irrelevant considerations or considerations extraneous to the purpose of the law, or when it violates general principles of law such as the prohibition of arbitrariness (Art. 9 Cst.) or equal treatment (Art. 8 Cst.).
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court begins by examining the admissibility of the appellant's claims. It declares the following inadmissible:
- The subsidiary constitutional appeal, as the appeal in public law matters is available.
- Declaratory claims (seeking a finding of unconstitutionality of the law), as they are subsidiary to claims for the annulment of the decision.
- The request for the withdrawal of proceedings, as it exceeds the scope of the dispute, which is limited to the issue of exemption.
- The request for evidentiary measures, as the appellant has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances justifying them.
On the merits, the Federal Supreme Court rejects the appellant's grievances:
- No abuse of discretion by the Federal Administrative Court (FAC): The Federal Supreme Court finds that the lower court did not abuse its discretion. The FAC correctly relied on the clear wording of Art. 69b RTVA. It noted that the legislature had deliberately chosen to exempt only recipients of supplementary benefits, thereby excluding social assistance recipients. The FAC aptly pointed out that the two social benefit systems (supplementary benefits and social assistance) are distinct, pursue different objectives, and that the social assistance system has its own mechanisms, such as the possibility of including the fee amount in the calculation of the subsistence allowance.
- Correct application of Art. 190 of the Federal Constitution: The appellant criticized the application of Art. 190 of the Federal Constitution, viewing it as a "misappropriation of popular sovereignty." The Federal Supreme Court rejects this argument. It confirms that the FAC, like the Court itself, was bound to apply the RTVA pursuant to Art. 190 of the Federal Constitution. Since the text of Art. 69b RTVA is absolutely clear and leaves no room for interpretation, it must be applied even if it could create unequal treatment. The Federal Supreme Court also refuses to reverse its case law regarding Art. 190 of the Federal Constitution, as the appellant has not provided sufficient grounds to justify such a change.
- Other constitutional grievances: The other grievances raised by the appellant (violation of equal treatment, prohibition of arbitrariness, etc.) are deemed insufficiently substantiated within the meaning ofArt. 106 para. 2 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA) and are therefore not examined.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declares the subsidiary constitutional appeal inadmissible. It dismisses the appeal in public law matters to the extent that it is admissible. Given the circumstances, the ruling is made without court costs, rendering the appellant's request for legal aid moot. No legal costs are awarded.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
