Federal Supreme Court, 11.11.2025, 9C_512/2025
Facts
An individual failed to pay the radio and television license fee for the years 2019 to 2022, totaling CHF 1,319.60. Serafe AG, the collection agency, initiated debt enforcement proceedings, which the individual contested. Serafe AG subsequently issued a decision ordering payment and granting final dismissal of the objection. The individual's successive appeals to the Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM) and then to the Federal Administrative Court were rejected. The individual appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, arguing that they should not have to pay the fee because the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SBC) allegedly failed to fulfill its service mandate as defined in Art. 4 of the Federal Act on Radio and Television (RTVA).
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing the radio and television license fee. Under Art. 69 and 69a of the RTVA, every household is, in principle, subject to the obligation to pay the fee. The Court emphasized the fundamental distinction between the fee collection procedure and the procedure for filing complaints regarding program content. Challenges to the quality of programs or compliance with the service mandate (Art. 4 RTVA) must follow a specific legal path: first, by contacting the ombudsman (Art. 94 RTVA), and subsequently by filing an appeal with the Independent Complaints Authority for Radio and Television (ICA) (Art. 93 para. 5 of the Constitution and Art. 83 RTVA). The obligation to pay the fee is independent of the taxpayer's personal assessment of program quality.
Application to the Case
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the Federal Administrative Court's decision not to consider the grievances regarding program quality. The appellant cannot contest their liability for the fee by invoking an alleged violation of the service mandate by the SBC (Art. 4 RTVA) within the framework of the tax assessment procedure. They should have utilized the specific legal path provided for this purpose (ombudsman, then ICA). The obligation to pay the fee is not contingent upon compliance with program content requirements. Allegations of a "conspiracy" and bias were also rejected. The fact that judicial and administrative authorities apply the law and declare themselves incompetent to examine program quality does not constitute a conspiracy or grounds for recusal. The accusations of bias were general and unsubstantiated, failing to meet the legal requirements that necessitate specific grievances against each individual magistrate.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, deeming it manifestly unfounded. The court costs, amounting to CHF 1,500, are to be borne by the appellant.
Silex Tax Newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
