Federal Supreme Court, 18.10.2025, 9C_473/2025
Facts
As part of a tax assessment procedure for the 2015 tax period in the canton of Aargau, a taxpayer filed an objection against her assessment. Subsequently, she requested the recusal of the tax commissioner in charge of the case and access to the case file. The tax authorities offered her the opportunity to inspect the documents on-site, which she refused. She demanded that the documents be sent electronically, citing health reasons (the Covid pandemic) and her financial inability to hire a lawyer for an on-site inspection.
Her request for recusal and her petition for electronic access to the file were rejected by the appeals commission, then by the Special Administrative Court, and finally by the Administrative Court of the canton of Aargau. During the appeal proceedings, the physical files were sent for inspection to the lawyer who was temporarily representing the taxpayer at the time. The taxpayer appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, maintaining her original claims.
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the fundamental principles regarding the right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 of the Constitution), which includes the right to inspect the case file. According to established case law, this right is, in principle, exercised on the premises of the authority concerned. There is no constitutional right to have case files sent to one's location, whether in physical or electronic form.
Regarding recusal (Art. 29 para. 1 of the Constitution), a request must be based on concrete and objective grounds capable of creating an appearance of bias. Mere general or vague allegations are insufficient to justify the recusal of a public official.
Finally, the "Justitia 4.0" project aimed at digitizing the justice system is not yet in force and therefore does not currently create a right to electronic access to files. Similarly, procedural provisions that provide for such a possibility (such as Art. 26 para. 1bis of the Federal Act on Administrative Procedure) are often discretionary ("may") and do not confer an absolute right.
Application to the Case
The Federal Supreme Court finds that the appellant's right to be heard was respected. The authorities correctly offered her the opportunity to inspect the file on-site. If health reasons prevented her from traveling, she could have authorized a trusted person (not necessarily a lawyer) to do so on her behalf. Furthermore, her lawyer did in fact have access to the physical documents during the appeal proceedings. The request for electronic transmission of the documents is therefore rejected for lack of a legal basis.
Regarding the request for recusal, the Federal Supreme Court notes that the appellant never provided concrete and specific grounds. She merely referred to unspecified "prior events" and "omissions," which is insufficient to demonstrate an appearance of bias on the part of the tax commissioner. The request for recusal is therefore also rejected.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal to the extent that it is admissible. The appellant's request for legal aid is also rejected, as her appeal was deemed to have no chance of success from the outset. The court costs, amounting to CHF 2,000, are charged to the appellant.
Silex Tax Newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
