Federal Supreme Court, 03.11.2025, 9C_561/2025
Facts
Serafe AG, the radio and television license fee collection agency, requested that A.________ provide proof of receipt of supplementary benefits (PC) to maintain their exemption. Due to a lack of evidence, Serafe held A.________ liable for the license fee starting March 1, 2023. A.________'s subsequent appeals to the Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM) and then to the Federal Administrative Court were rejected. A.________ then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Legal Analysis
According to Art. 69b para. 1 let. a of the Federal Act on Radio and Television (RTVA), individuals receiving annual supplementary benefits (pursuant to Art. 3 para. 1 let. a of the Supplementary Benefits Act) are, upon request, exempt from the license fee. Procedurally, Art. 42 paras. 1 and 2 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA) require that an appeal contain specific requests and arguments explaining how the contested decision violates the law. Qualified reasoning is required for the violation of fundamental rights (Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA). The appellant must address the reasoning of the contested decision; purely appellatory criticism is insufficient.
Application to the Case
The Federal Supreme Court notes that the dispute concerns only the liability for the license fee and the exemption provided for by the RTVA. The appellant's claims regarding state liability or the reimbursement of previous fees are therefore inadmissible as they fall outside the scope of the dispute. Furthermore, the Federal Supreme Court finds that the appeal is insufficiently reasoned. The appellant does not address the reasoning of the Federal Administrative Court's judgment. They do not explain how the assessment of evidence was untenable or how the application of the RTVA was contrary to federal law. On the contrary, their own explanations seem to confirm that their application for supplementary benefits for the period in question had been rejected due to their financial situation, which corroborates the contested decision. The appeal therefore does not meet the minimum requirements for reasoning under Arts. 42 and 106 FSCA.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court does not admit the appeal. It waives court costs, rendering the appellant's request for legal aid moot.
Silex Tax Newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
