1Niemand darf sein Gesicht im öffentlichen Raum und an Orten verhüllen, die öffentlich zugänglich sind oder an denen grundsätzlich von jedermann beanspruchbare Dienstleistungen angeboten werden; das Verbot gilt nicht für Sakralstätten.
2Niemand darf eine Person zwingen, ihr Gesicht aufgrund ihres Geschlechts zu verhüllen.
3Das Gesetz sieht Ausnahmen vor. Diese umfassen ausschliesslich Gründe der Gesundheit, der Sicherheit, der klimatischen Bedingungen und des einheimischen Brauchtums.
Art. 10a FC — Overview
Art. 10a FC prohibits the covering of the face in public spaces. The prohibition has been in effect since 1 January 2022, after the popular initiative «Yes to the covering ban» was accepted on 7 March 2021. The provision covers all places that are publicly accessible - from streets to shops to public transport.
All persons who cover their face in such a way that they cannot be identified are affected. This concerns religious full veiling such as burka or niqab, but also secular coverings such as balaclavas or masks outside the intended exceptions.
The Federal Act on the Prohibition of Face Covering (SR 211.11) provides for fines of up to 1,000 francs for violations of the covering prohibition (Art. 2 SR 211.11). The police can demand immediate removal of the covering.
Important exceptions apply under Art. 3 SR 211.11 for religious sites (churches, mosques), health reasons (masks for illness), security (motorcycle helmets), climatic conditions (cold protection) and local customs (carnival). Artistic performances and advertising purposes are also exempt from the prohibition.
A concrete example: A woman with niqab may no longer enter a shop or go on the street, unless she is in a mosque or wears the covering for health reasons. A violation is subject to a fine of up to 1,000 francs.
The covering prohibition stands in tension with freedom of religion (Art. 15 FC) and personal freedom (Art. 10 FC). The case law of the Federal Supreme Court on cantonal covering prohibitions shows that such prohibitions are fundamentally constitutional, provided appropriate exceptions exist (BGE 144 I 281).
Enforcement is carried out by the cantonal police authorities. The prohibition aims to ensure public security and order as well as to enable the identification of persons in public spaces.
N. 1 Art. 10a FC is the result of the popular initiative "Yes to the ban on face coverings", which was adopted on 7 March 2021 with 51.2% of votes in favour. The provision came into force on 1 January 2022. The Federal Council had recommended rejecting the initiative and had presented an indirect counter-proposal (BBl 2019 2913). The Federal Council's message argued that a nationwide ban on face coverings would be disproportionate and that existing cantonal regulations were sufficient. The initiative committee, on the other hand, emphasised security aspects and the importance of "open communication" in Swiss society.
N. 2 The legislative history shows an intensive societal debate about the balance between security interests, religious freedom and cultural values. In the run-up to the vote, cantonal face-covering bans already existed in Ticino (since 2016) and St. Gallen (since 2019), whose experiences were incorporated into the discussion. Parliamentary deliberations focused particularly on the design of exceptions and compatibility with international legal obligations.
N. 3 Art. 10a FC is systematically placed after Art. 10 FC (right to life and personal liberty), but does not belong to the catalogue of fundamental rights (Art. 7-36 FC). Rather, the provision constitutes a constitutional limitation on the exercise of various fundamental rights, namely personal liberty (Art. 10 para. 2 FC), freedom of belief and conscience (Art. 15 FC) as well as freedom of expression and assembly (Art. 16 and 22 FC).
N. 4 The norm stands in tension with several constitutional principles: → Art. 5 FC (rule of law), → Art. 8 FC (legal equality and prohibition of discrimination), → Art. 35 FC (realisation of fundamental rights) and → Art. 36 FC (restriction of fundamental rights). Particularly significant is the relationship to Art. 15 FC, as religious dress codes represent a central area of application of the ban on face coverings.
N. 5Covering of the face (para. 1): The prohibition covers any covering of the face that makes identification of the person impossible or difficult. According to the preparatory works, this includes full veiling (burqa, niqab), but also non-religious face coverings such as balaclavas or masks. The boundary of permitted partial covering (e.g. sunglasses, scarves) requires specification through implementing legislation and practice.
N. 6Publicly accessible places (para. 1): The term encompasses all places that are open to an indefinite number of persons, regardless of ownership relationships. This includes streets, squares, public transport, shops, restaurants and government buildings. Private premises and those with restricted access (e.g. club premises) are not covered.
N. 7Exceptions (para. 2): The law provides for three categories of exceptions:
Sacred places: Churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious places of worship
N. 8 The constitutional provision obliges the legislature to create implementing provisions that must provide for sanctions. The Federal Act on the Prohibition of Face Coverings of 19 March 2021 provides for fines of up to CHF 1,000. Enforcement is primarily the responsibility of the cantons within the framework of their police powers.
N. 9 In case of violations of the ban on face coverings, police authorities may demand removal of the covering. In case of refusal, identity checks and, if necessary, an order to leave are permissible. The specific measures must comply with the principle of proportionality (→ Art. 5 para. 2 FC).
N. 10Scope of exceptions: The interpretation of the exception categories is disputed. Müller/Schefer (Grundrechte, 4th ed. 2008, p. 287) advocate for a broad interpretation to protect fundamental rights. Rhinow/Schefer/Uebersax (Verfassungsrecht, 3rd ed. 2016, N 2164) take a more restrictive position with reference to the purpose of the popular initiative. The BSK BV-Waldmann (2nd ed. 2024, Art. 10a N 15) emphasises the necessity of a case-by-case balancing of interests.
N. 11Relationship to the ECHR: Compatibility with Art. 9 ECHR is controversial. The SGK-Ehrenzeller (4th ed. 2023, Art. 10a N 8) sees no violation of the Convention, referring to ECtHR S.A.S./France. More critical is Häfelin/Haller/Keller/Thurnherr (Bundesstaatsrecht, 10th ed. 2020, N 456a), who point to the different societal contexts in Switzerland and France.
N. 12Prohibition of discrimination: Indirect discrimination against Muslim women is assessed differently in legal doctrine. Belser (AJP 2021, 789) sees a violation of Art. 8 para. 2 FC, while Tschannen (ZBl 2022, 125) emphasises the neutrality of the prohibition. The Bern Commentary BV-Martenet (Art. 10a N 22) takes a mediating position.
N. 13 Authorities must exercise particular sensitivity when enforcing the ban on face coverings. A schematic application without consideration of the specific circumstances is inadmissible. In cases of religiously motivated coverings, a graduated approach is recommended: information, request for removal, fine as ultima ratio.
N. 14 The exception provisions are to be interpreted, in case of doubt, in favour of the exercise of fundamental rights. Particular restraint is required especially with spontaneous assemblies (→ Art. 22 FC) or artistic performances. The distinction between permitted advertising and impermissible covering requires an overall assessment of context, duration and purpose.
N. 15 Relevant for practice is the coordination between federal and cantonal law. Cantons with their own face-covering bans must adapt their regulations to Art. 10a FC. Stricter cantonal provisions are inadmissible (→ Art. 49 FC), while the federal exceptions apply as minimum standards.
Art. 10a BV — Case Law
#Constitutional Conformity of Cantonal Face-Covering Bans
BGE 144 I 281 — 20 September 2018
The Federal Supreme Court has examined the Ticino laws on the face-covering ban in public spaces and found them fundamentally constitutional.
The cantonal face-covering ban serves the legitimate purpose of ensuring public safety and order by preventing acts of violence and enabling police identification of persons.
«Il divieto di dissimulazione del volto secondo le normative ticinesi persegue sia lo scopo di impedire atti di violenza in occasione di raggruppamenti di persone [...], consentendo in particolare alle autorità di polizia di facilitare l'identificazione e le indagini nei confronti di eventuali responsabili di atti di violenza.»
BGE 144 I 281 — 20 September 2018
A face-covering ban violates freedom of expression and freedom of assembly if it does not provide for appropriate exceptions.
The Federal Supreme Court required the Ticino Grand Council to expand the exception provisions for political, commercial and advertising events.
«Im Lichte der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichts [...] erscheint das so formulierte Verbot unter dem Blickwinkel der Meinungsfreiheit, der Versammlungsfreiheit und der Wirtschaftsfreiheit als unverhältnismässig [...]. Um es mit diesen Grundrechten vereinbar zu machen, wird der Grosse Rat die Gesetze ergänzen und zusätzliche Ausnahmen für die betreffenden Veranstaltungen vorsehen müssen.»
BGE 144 I 281 — 20 September 2018
Freedom of religion was not disputed in the Ticino case, as the complainants had not challenged the face-covering ban from the perspective of freedom of religion.
The Federal Supreme Court therefore did not examine the compatibility of face-covering bans with freedom of religion.
«I ricorrenti non contestano il divieto di dissimulare il volto con riferimento alla libertà religiosa, questione che esula pertanto dall'oggetto del litigio e non deve essere esaminata in questa sede.»
BGE 144 I 281 — 20 September 2018
Cantonal face-covering bans do not violate the right to informational self-determination.
The ban does not aim at systematic data collection, but rather at limiting the potential for violence at assemblies and demonstrations.
«Come è stato esposto, il contestato divieto non ha in realtà lo scopo di raccogliere ed elaborare dati personali, ma mira essenzialmente a limitare il potenziale di pericolo collegato allo svolgimento di manifestazioni e dimostrazioni.»
BGE 148 I 160 — 23 December 2021
The Geneva Laicity Act, which stipulates that the face must remain visible in certain public places, is constitutional.
The provision is in accordance with freedom of religion and the principle of proportionality.
«Art. 7 Abs. 2 LLE/GE, der vorschreibt, dass an gewissen öffentlichen Orten das Gesicht sichtbar bleiben muss, ist mit Art. 15 und 36 BV und Art. 9 Ziff. 1 EMRK konform.»
BGE 144 I 281 — 20 September 2018
Cantonal face-covering bans do not violate the principle of supremacy of federal law.
The ban does not constitute an intervention in federal criminal law, but falls within cantonal competence for police measures to protect public order.
«L'art. 260bis CP, invocato dai ricorrenti, punisce gli atti preparatori nel caso di specifici reati particolarmente gravi. L'art. 2 cpv. 1 lett. i e l LOrP non interferisce in questo ordinamento, ma rientra nelle facoltà del legislatore di prevedere contravvenzioni, nell'ambito delle sue competenze, in materia di tutela dell'ordine e della sicurezza pubblici.»
BGE 144 I 281 — 20 September 2018
The maximum fine of 10,000 francs for violations of the face-covering ban is constitutional.
The amount corresponds to the maximum under Art. 106 para. 1 SCC and must be set proportionately in each individual case.
«L'importo fissato può inoltre essere oggetto di un controllo giudiziario in occasione di un'applicazione concreta. In questa sede è sufficiente rilevare che il limite massimo di fr. 10'000.- corrisponde a quello previsto per le multe secondo l'art. 106 cpv. 1 CP e in astratto non appare quindi insostenibile.»
BGE 144 I 281 — 20 September 2018
A face-covering ban is only proportionate if it provides for appropriate exceptions that go beyond an exhaustive list.
Legal exception lists must be formulated in such a way that additional exceptions remain possible in justified cases.
«Queste norme non prevedono quindi esplicitamente un'eccezione per manifestazioni politiche, commerciali o pubblicitarie [...]. In tali circostanze, gli art. 2 cpv. 2 LOrP e 4 LDiss appaiono incompleti e devono quindi essere precisati dal legislatore cantonale nel senso che le eccezioni elencate non hanno carattere esaustivo.»
BGE 144 I 281 — 20 September 2018
Exceptions must apply in particular to events whose purpose can only be achieved through face covering.
For example, wearing gas masks at demonstrations against air pollution or nuclear power plant risks.
«Il Tribunale federale ha quindi considerato che in quelle circostanze, la normativa cantonale potesse essere oggetto di un'interpretazione conforme alla Costituzione [...] segnatamente nel caso in cui una dimostrazione poteva raggiungere il suo scopo in modo ottimale soltanto dissimulando il viso (per esempio indossando una maschera contro l'inquinamento atmosferico).»