Federal Supreme Court, 28.05.2026, 9C_337/2026
Facts
A private individual, A., demanded that the Zurich cantonal tax administration systematically write his name in the format "SURNAME, FIRST NAME" in all registers and correspondence. Receiving no response, he filed a complaint for denial of justice and unjustified delay with the Finance Department of the Canton of Zurich. (consid. 1.1)
While this procedure was ongoing, the appellant filed a new appeal for denial of justice and unjustified delay with the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich, this time against the Finance Department. By decision of April 8, 2026, the Administrative Court declared the appeal inadmissible due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (consid. 1.2)
The appellant then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the annulment of the Administrative Court's inadmissibility decision, the referral of the case back to that same body, various findings regarding the writing of his name, and, alternatively, the annulment or reduction of the first-instance court costs. (consid. 1.3)
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the requirements for the grounds of an appeal, in accordance withArt. 42 para. 1 and 2 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA). The appellant must concisely explain how the contested act violates the law. A heightened requirement for grounds applies when the violation of fundamental rights is invoked (Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA), with the grievance needing to be presented and substantiated in a precise manner. (consid. 2.1)
When the contested decision is a decision of inadmissibility (Nichteintretensentscheid), the subject of the dispute before the Federal Supreme Court is limited exclusively to the question of whether the lower court rightly refused to hear the case. Substantive issues are not examined at this stage. (consid. 2.2)
In this case, the lower court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on an appeal for denial of justice or unjustified delay by the Finance Department. It specified that the competent authority for such an appeal was the Governing Council (Regierungsrat) of the Canton of Zurich. It also considered that an ex officio transfer of the appeal to the competent authority was not necessary, as this type of appeal is not subject to any time limit. (consid. 2.2)
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court notes that the appellant does not address, even summarily, the central reasoning of the contested decision, namely the lack of jurisdiction of the Administrative Court. The appellant does not dispute the fact that he should have addressed the Governing Council. On the contrary, he implicitly admits the Administrative Court's lack of jurisdiction by stating that he had also filed an appeal with the Governing Council. Under these conditions, it is not discernible how the inadmissibility decision would violate the law. (consid. 2.3 and 2.3.1)
Regarding the assessment of court costs by the lower court, the Federal Supreme Court notes that the appellant is considered the losing party due to the inadmissibility of his appeal. The question of whether his appeal was devoid of any chance of success or frivolous is irrelevant to the allocation of costs in this context. His challenge to the amount of the costs, formulated in a general manner, does not satisfy the requirements for grounds. (consid. 2.3.2)
Finally, regarding the grievance relating to the writing of his name (format "First Name Surname" instead of "SURNAME, FIRST NAME"), the appellant merely invokes a general violation of his right to be heard, without explaining how the use of the standard format would constitute a violation of the law. This grievance is therefore insufficiently substantiated. (consid. 2.3.3)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court concludes that the appeal is manifestly unsubstantiated within the meaning of Articles 42 and 106(2) of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF). Consequently, it is declared inadmissible under the simplified procedure provided for in Article 108(1)(b) LTF. (recital 3)
Court costs, set at 800 francs, are to be borne by the appellant, who has been unsuccessful (Article 66(1) LTF). (operative part, recitals 2 and 3)
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
