Federal Supreme Court rejects appeal by former Ticino cantonal councillor
Published: Monday, Oct 7th 2024, 17:40
Back to Live Feed
The Federal Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by former Ticino cantonal councillor Manuele Bertoli (SP) and a party colleague. The appeal concerns a legislative decree that the Ticino cantonal parliament passed last February as part of the 2024 budget debate.
According to the Federal Supreme Court ruling, the appeal was directed against two legislative decrees relating to asylum costs. Specifically, the Ticino cantonal government is to be obliged to do everything necessary to ensure that expenditure on asylum does not exceed the amount covered by the federal government.
In their complaint, the two complainants demanded that the two articles of the law be repealed as they did not contain a referendum clause. They also argued that the two articles did not allow for a constitutional interpretation.
The two complainants stated that attempts had been made in the parliamentary debate from the outset to relativize the scope of the two disputed articles. In addition, the President of the Grand Council had only clarified the two articles after the parliamentary deliberations.
According to the Federal Supreme Court, the Grand Council argued that the contested articles were not general abstract standards, but rather proposals of a "programmatic nature" addressed to the government. The Grand Council recommended that the complaint be rejected.
Lack of justification
In its ruling, the Federal Supreme Court states that the budget debate is an "internal act" of Parliament. As such, this could not be contested. Furthermore, it is not for the Federal Supreme Court to investigate in order to identify any elements that may or may not support the complainants' argument.
Overall, the complainants had not succeeded in asserting the violation of a federal or cantonal legal norm or the violation of a fundamental right.
Nor had they shown that the two disputed articles did not permit an interpretation in conformity with the constitution. In this context, they had merely referred to the absence of the referendum clause, which was irrelevant. (Judgment 1C_115/2024 of 19.9.2024)
©Keystone/SDA
English 
German 
French 
Spanish 
Arabic