TF, 03.26.2026, 9C_572/2025
Facts
Following a municipal merger, the new Municipality of U.________ adopted new regulations in December 2021 concerning the distribution of drinking water (RDE) and the disposal and treatment of wastewater (REEE), applicable as of January 2022. These regulations repealed the bylaws of the former municipalities.
In March 2023, co-owners A.A.________ and B.A.________ received an invoice for CHF 1,500.40 for the year 2022, calculated based on these new regulations. They contested this amount, arguing that applying the former rates for their sector should have resulted in a maximum invoice of CHF 866.05.
Their complaint to the Municipal Council was rejected, as was their subsequent appeal to the Prefecture of the Sarine (which did, however, cancel an administrative fee). Ultimately, the Tax Court of the Fribourg Cantonal Court also rejected their appeal. The co-owners then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the cancellation of the invoice and a recalculation of the taxes based on the former regulations.
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates that it examines the admissibility of appeals submitted to it of its own motion and freely (Art. 29 para. 1 LTF).
It emphasizes the heightened requirement for substantiation, or the principle of allegation, provided for inArt. 106 para. 2 LTF. When an appellant invokes the violation of constitutional rights (such as the prohibition of arbitrariness, Art. 9 Cst.) or an erroneous application of cantonal or municipal law, they cannot rely on general criticisms. They must explain in a clear, detailed, and substantiated manner how the contested decision violates the invoked law. A mere assertion, without precise legal demonstration, is insufficient.
The Federal Supreme Court also specifies the procedures for reviewing the constitutionality of a cantonal or municipal norm. This review is carried out on a prejudicial basis, within the framework of a concrete dispute concerning an act of application of that norm (concrete review). If the norm is deemed unconstitutional, the Federal Supreme Court does not annul the norm itself, but sets aside its application in the specific case and modifies the resulting decision.
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court finds that the appeal does not meet the substantiation requirements of Art. 106 para. 2 LTF.
Firstly, the appellants' grievances targeting the entirety of the new municipal regulations (RDE and REEE) and their adoption procedure are deemed inadmissible. The appellants failed to provide sufficiently detailed argumentation explaining how these regulations or their adoption would be arbitrary or violate other constitutional rights.
Second, regarding the actual application—the tax invoice itself—the appellants also failed to raise objections that meet the requirements for substantiation. They did not demonstrate in detail how the specific tax applied to them was contrary to the law.
Third, the specific grievances concerning a manifestly inaccurate finding of facts and a violation of the Price Surveillance Act (PSU) are also dismissed for the same reason. The appellants linked these criticisms to the procedure for adopting regulations and the access of Municipal Assembly members to the Price Supervisor's recommendations, but they failed to specify which concrete regulatory provisions would be affected and which constitutional standard would have been violated by their application.
The Federal Supreme Court concludes that, due to a lack of substantiation meeting legal requirements, all of the grievances raised are inadmissible.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declares the appeal inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation. The court costs, reduced to CHF 500, are to be borne by the appellants. No legal costs are awarded to the respondent municipality.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
