TF, 03.03.2026, 9C_314/2025
Facts
A community of heirs (the appellants) inherited a building in Leuzigen following the death of the owner in September 2019. The building was rented, but the tenant died abroad in December 2017, leaving the property unoccupied. Between November 2018 and April 2019, the municipality carried out an external sealing of the building to preserve the deceased tenant's belongings, without however holding a key or having access to the interior.
In March 2021, when the flat was opened in the presence of one of the heirs and a representative of the municipality, the water meter was read. It showed an extraordinary consumption of 41,500 m³. This overconsumption was due to an undetected pipe rupture on a private installation (upstream of the toilet flush), which occurred on an undetermined date between the last reading in 2016 and March 2021.
In January 2022, the municipality of Leuzigen invoiced the estate an amount of CHF 52,728.15 for water and wastewater charges for the period from 1 January 2017 to 31 March 2021. Since the estate's successive appeals were dismissed by the cantonal authorities, it brought the matter before the Federal Supreme Court, seeking the annulment of the invoice or, in the alternative, a 90% reduction of the consumption charges.
Law
The Federal Supreme Court recalls that the owner of a property is the debtor of the water and wastewater charges (art. 49 para. 1 of the Leuzigen Water Supply Regulation [WVR]). In accordance with communal law (art. 31 to 33 WVR) and civil law (art. 676 para. 1 CC a contrario), the owner is solely responsible for the construction, maintenance and renewal of private installations, which must be kept in good working order. Water losses due to defects in these private installations are therefore borne by the owner.
Water consumption charges are causal contributions governed by the principle of equivalence and that of cost coverage. The charge is due in return for the provision of water by the community, and its amount is calculated on the basis of the volume measured by the meter, irrespective of the actual benefit the owner derived from it. A reduction on grounds of equity is possible only if a regulatory legal basis explicitly provides for it, which is not the case here.
As regards the limitation period, communal law (art. 48 WVR) may derogate from the rules of the Code of Obligations. In this instance, the regulation provides for a five-year limitation period for periodic charges and stipulates that the limitation period is interrupted by "any recovery measure", including the sending of an invoice. Such provisions comply with federal law and are common in tax and administrative law.
Application to the present case
The Federal Supreme Court examines and rejects one by one the complaints of the appellants, who alleged multiple failings on the part of the municipality.
- Liability for the leak: The Federal Supreme Court confirms that responsibility for the maintenance of private pipes lies exclusively with the owners. Since the overconsumption was due to a defect in their installation, they must bear the financial consequences.
- Absence of an annual meter reading: The appellants criticise the municipality for not having carried out an annual reading, which would have made it possible to detect the leak earlier. The Court holds that, although the annual reading is the practice, the owners could not shift their own monitoring obligation onto the municipality. They should have been surprised no longer to receive water invoices for several years and should have contacted the municipality. The municipality's omission does not constitute a violation of the principle of good faith that would transfer liability for the loss.
- Failure to cut off the connection: The appellants consider that the municipality should have cut off the water connection after more than a year of vacancy, in accordance with art. 17 lit. b WVR. The Court replies that it was primarily incumbent on the owners to inform the municipality of the prolonged vacancy of the property and to request a possible cut-off. Without this information, the municipality had no reason to act.
- Sealing and access to the building: The Court dismisses the argument that the sealing prevented the owners from monitoring their property. The measure concerned only the deceased tenant's belongings and not the building itself. The municipality had no key. The conduct of the owners, who criticise the municipality for a lack of monitoring when they themselves did not ensure access, is held to be contradictory.
- Date of the leak and burden of proof: The exact date of the pipe rupture could not be established. The Federal Supreme Court recalls that the burden of proving the facts that would justify a reduction of the claim (for example, a preponderant fault of the municipality at a specific time) lies with the appellants. In the absence of proof, they must bear the consequences of this uncertainty.
- Refusal of the charge reduction: The request for a reduction on grounds of proportionality and equity is rejected. The charge is based on the measured consumption, which represents the service provided by the community. The fact that the water was lost and did not benefit the owners is irrelevant, since the risk connected with private installations belongs to them. The communal regulation provides no possibility of reduction for such cases.
- Limitation period: The Federal Supreme Court upholds the application of art. 48 WVR. The invoice, regarded as a decision, sent on 25 January 2022, validly interrupted the five-year limitation period for the 2017 claims. The claim is therefore not time-barred.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. The community of heirs is ordered to pay the entirety of the water and wastewater charges, i.e. CHF 52,728.15. The court costs, amounting to CHF 4,500, are borne jointly and severally by the appellants.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Me Anna Vladau
