1Der Bund fördert die Eingliederung Invalider durch die Ausrichtung von Geld- und Sachleistungen. Zu diesem Zweck kann er Mittel der Invalidenversicherung verwenden.
2Die Kantone fördern die Eingliederung Invalider, insbesondere durch Beiträge an den Bau und den Betrieb von Institutionen, die dem Wohnen und dem Arbeiten dienen.
3Das Gesetz legt die Ziele der Eingliederung und die Grundsätze und Kriterien fest.
Art. 112b — Integration of Persons with Disabilities
#Overview
Art. 112b Cst. regulates who may and must support people with disabilities in their reintegration into working life and society. The provision divides this task between the Confederation and the cantons.
The Confederation may promote integration measures, but is not required to do so. It may enact legislation, allocate funds or coordinate. The cantons, however, must support people with disabilities in their integration. They have a duty to act, but may decide for themselves which measures to take.
The term «invalids» encompasses all people with permanent physical, mental or psychological impairments. This is broader than the disability insurance (IV), which only considers employment-related limitations.
Integration means active participation in social life. This includes occupational measures such as retraining or workplace adaptations, but also social integration such as assisted living or leisure activities.
The Constitution does not give anyone a direct right to specific assistance. Concrete claims arise only through legislation such as the Federal Act on Disability Insurance (IVG) or cantonal disability acts.
Example: A woman becomes paraplegic after an accident. The Confederation finances occupational retraining as a bookkeeper through the IV. The canton must additionally provide wheelchair-accessible housing and leisure facilities. Both levels work together, but the canton bears primary responsibility.
The Confederation coordinates through the Federal Act on Institutions for the Promotion of Integration (IFEG). This regulates which disability institutions the Confederation supports financially and which quality requirements apply.
Art. 112b BV — Promotion of the Integration of Persons with Disabilities
#Doctrine
#1. Legislative History
N. 1 Art. 112b BV was not enshrined in the original Federal Constitution of 1999, but was brought into force on 1 January 2008 by the Federal Act of 6 October 2006 on the Creation and Amendment of Enactments for the Reform of Fiscal Equalisation and the Division of Tasks between the Confederation and the Cantons (NFA Umbrella Act; AS 2007 5779). Its inclusion in the Constitution formed part of the NFA reform, the central aim of which was a clearer division of tasks between the Confederation and the Cantons (Message of the Federal Council on the Implementing Legislation for the Reform of Fiscal Equalisation and the Division of Tasks between the Confederation and the Cantons [NFA Message], BBl 2005 6029, 6201).
N. 2 Prior to the entry into force of Art. 112b BV, the financing of institutions for persons with disabilities was primarily a federal responsibility: the Federal Social Insurance Office (FSIO) granted, on the basis of Art. 73 IVG (former version), construction and operating subsidies to residential homes, workshops, and day centres. The NFA replaced these collective benefits of disability insurance and transferred responsibility for the operation of institutions to the Cantons (NFA Message, BBl 2005 6029, 6201 f.). Art. 73 IVG (former version) was simultaneously repealed by No. II 25 of the NFA Umbrella Act (AS 2007 5817). From that point, the Cantons held primary competence to finance residential and occupational facilities for persons with disabilities (→ N. 7).
N. 3 The federal legislature has enacted the Federal Act of 6 October 2006 on Institutions Promoting the Integration of Persons with Disabilities (IFEG; SR 831.26) as implementing legislation for Art. 112b BV. Its purpose is to guarantee persons with disabilities access to an appropriate institution (Art. 1 IFEG). The NFA Message (BBl 2005 6029, 6204 ff.) states that under Art. 112b para. 3 BV the federal legislature retains only the competence to establish objectives, principles, and criteria, and not to regulate the detailed operation of institutions.
#2. Systematic Classification
N. 4 Art. 112b BV is a competence norm in the social sphere. It belongs to the sixth chapter of the seventh title of the BV (social insurance, Art. 111–117 BV) and stands in immediate context with Art. 111 BV (old-age, survivors', and invalidity provision) and Art. 112 BV (old-age and survivors' insurance). The article is divided into three paragraphs: para. 1 contains the federal competence to promote integration by means of cash and in-kind benefits; para. 2 establishes the cantonal obligation to promote integration through institutional contributions; para. 3 reserves to the federal legislature the authority to establish objectives, principles, and criteria.
N. 5 Art. 112b BV does not confer subjective rights on individuals vis-à-vis the state (→ N. 17). It is a constitutional provision of the «shared competence» type (Häfelin/Haller/Keller/Thurnherr, Schweizerisches Bundesstaatsrecht, 10th ed. 2020, N 1046): both the Confederation and the Cantons are competent, but for different sub-areas. The provision is closely linked to → Art. 8 paras. 2 and 4 BV (prohibition of discrimination, equality for persons with disabilities), → Art. 12 BV (right to assistance in situations of need), and → Art. 41 BV (social goals), which formulate the integration of persons with disabilities as a societal objective. The proportionality test under → Art. 36 para. 3 BV is not applicable to Art. 112b BV, since the provision does not afford fundamental-rights protection against state interference.
N. 6 There is no direct parallel provision under the ECHR; however, Art. 8 ECHR (right to private and family life) and Art. 14 ECHR (prohibition of discrimination) serve as relevant interpretive aids where cantonal implementing measures affect the right to adequate accommodation (Müller/Schefer, Grundrechte in der Schweiz, 5th ed. 2019, p. 762 ff.). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD; SR 0.109), ratified by Switzerland on 15 April 2014, obliges Switzerland to make reasonable accommodation and to ensure social participation (Art. 19 CRPD); it must be taken into account when interpreting Art. 112b para. 3 BV and the IFEG, but does not itself create directly applicable individual rights under domestic law (Müller/Schefer, loc. cit., p. 763).
#3. Elements of the Provision / Normative Content
N. 7 Paragraph 1: Federal competence. The Confederation promotes the integration of persons with disabilities through cash and in-kind benefits. These are benefits directed at individuals (pensions, daily allowances, helplessness allowances, auxiliary aids), and no longer collective institutional contributions. The word «may» in sentence 2 — «To this end it may use funds from disability insurance» — grants the Confederation a margin of discretion but does not make the use of disability insurance funds mandatory. Rhinow/Schefer/Uebersax, Schweizerisches Verfassungsrecht, 3rd ed. 2016, N 3192, characterise this aspect as an organisational authorisation without any duty to act on the part of the Confederation at the constitutional level.
N. 8 Paragraph 2: Cantonal obligation. The Cantons «promote» the integration of persons with disabilities, in particular by contributing to the construction and operation of institutions serving residential and occupational purposes. The word «in particular» indicates that these examples are not exhaustive; the Cantons may also choose other forms of promotion, such as direct contributions to the persons concerned (demand-side financing) instead of institutional subsidies (supply-side financing). The NFA Message (BBl 2005 6029, 6207 f.) expressly permits both systems. The constitutional obligation of the Cantons is legally binding; the IFEG gives it concrete form in Art. 2 (duty to provide services) and Art. 7 (cost-sharing).
N. 9 The concept of «persons with disabilities» («Invalide») in Art. 112b BV is to be understood in the sense of social insurance law: it refers to persons whose capacity to work or to engage in their customary activities is permanently impaired by physical, mental, or psychological health damage (cf. Art. 8 para. 1 ATSG; SR 830.1). The concept is broader than the definition of invalidity relevant for disability insurance pension entitlements and also encompasses persons with disabilities who have no entitlement to a pension.
N. 10 Paragraph 3: Federal legislative competence. The Confederation is authorised to establish by statute the objectives of integration and the relevant principles and criteria. This competence is limited: it does not extend to the design of the cantonal institutional system, but only to overarching parameters (NFA Message, BBl 2005 6029, 6204). The IFEG implements this competence: Art. 1 IFEG (purpose), Art. 2 IFEG (duty to provide services), Arts. 4 f. IFEG (conditions for recognition), Art. 7 IFEG (cost-sharing), and Art. 10 IFEG (cantons' obligation to submit a concept).
#4. Legal Consequences
N. 11 At the federal level, the Confederation is obliged to promote the integration of persons with disabilities through individual cash and in-kind benefits. This occurs primarily through the IVG (SR 831.20): integration measures (Arts. 8 ff. IVG), pensions (Arts. 28 ff. IVG), and auxiliary aids (Art. 21 IVG) are the central instruments. The Confederation's former competence to grant collective construction and operating subsidies (Art. 73 IVG, former version) lapsed with the NFA as of 1 January 2008; ongoing subsidy relationships for the 2005 financial year could still be settled under the former law (Judgment of the Federal Administrative Court C-715/2007 of 20 February 2008, consid. 1.2 and 2).
N. 12 At the cantonal level, the obligation arising from Art. 112b para. 2 BV in conjunction with Art. 2 IFEG gives rise to an entitlement of persons with disabilities to adequate accommodation in their canton of domicile. This entitlement belongs to the person concerned, even though the obligation to make services available is directed at the Canton (BGE 140 V 499 E. 5.3.2). However, a person with a disability cannot directly invoke Art. 7 IFEG to claim higher supplementary benefits (Judgment of the Federal Supreme Court 9C_623/2016 of 21 March 2017, consid. 2.2.2). The Cantons may not meet institutional costs from social assistance funds, but must do so by means of subsidies or direct support contributions (BGE 140 V 499 E. 5.1).
N. 13 The Cantons may choose between supply-side and demand-side financing. Under supply-side financing, the Canton pays contributions to the institutions (service agreements); under demand-side financing, individual contributions are paid directly to the person with a disability. Federal law does not prescribe which system the Cantons must use (NFA Message, BBl 2005 6029, 6207 f.; Judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Berne 100.2020.275/2021.63U of 10 May 2023, consid. 3.2). Both models are compatible with Art. 112b para. 2 BV provided the minimum requirements of the IFEG are met.
N. 14 The level of cantonal participation in care costs must comply with the principle of proportionality: the costs to the public authorities and the benefit to the person with a disability must bear a reasonable relationship to each other (BGE 140 V 499 E. 5.3.1, with reference to the NFA Message, BBl 2005 6029, 6205). Capping the cantonal contribution at a maximum amount is in principle permissible; however, it is disproportionate if the remaining shortfall in practice forces a change of institution that the Canton has simultaneously acknowledged to be unreasonable (Judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Berne 100.2020.275/2021.63U of 10 May 2023, consid. 5.7).
N. 15 The implementing legislation (IFEG) also obliges the Cantons to submit to the Federal Council a concept for the promotion of integration (Art. 10 IFEG). This concept is not a document that can be enforced by individuals, but rather a management instrument for the cantonal care system.
#5. Contentious Issues
N. 16 Legal nature of the cantonal obligation (para. 2). It is disputed whether Art. 112b para. 2 BV establishes an obligation of the Canton that can be enforced by individuals, or merely a duty of a state-organisational nature. Rhinow/Schefer/Uebersax, loc. cit., N 3192, tend towards a purely state-organisational characterisation. However, the Federal Supreme Court clarified in BGE 140 V 499 E. 5.3.2 that the legal entitlement to adequate accommodation «belongs to the person with a disability», which points to an individual-rights dimension. This entitlement is, however, anchored in the IFEG — not in the Constitution itself — and is thus given statutory form; it is weaker than a classic fundamental right in the sense that its content is shaped by cantonal implementing legislation.
N. 17 Absence of subjective rights under Art. 112b BV. It is recognised in legal scholarship that Art. 112b BV does not constitute direct subjective individual entitlements; these can arise only from the IFEG or cantonal law (Häfelin/Haller/Keller/Thurnherr, loc. cit., N 1046; Rhinow/Schefer/Uebersax, loc. cit., N 3192). In this respect, Art. 112b BV differs from genuine fundamental rights such as Art. 29 para. 1 BV or Art. 12 BV. A limited direct effect does, however, arise from the legislative mandate enshrined in Art. 112b para. 3 BV, which obliges the Confederation to implement the provision normatively and is more justiciable than a mere social goal under Art. 41 BV (cf. N. 5 on the relationship to Art. 41 BV).
N. 18 Delimitation of individual benefits from institutional benefits. Before the NFA, it was disputed whether the financial assistance under Art. 73 IVG (former version) was to be classified as compensation payments or as financial assistance within the meaning of the Subsidies Act (SuG; SR 616.1). The Federal Supreme Court decided in BGE 130 V 177 E. 5.2 that it constituted financial assistance (not compensation payments), since the beneficiary institutions carried out their activities of their own accord. While this case law is tailored to the former law, it remains fundamentally relevant for understanding cantonal subsidy law applicable today. Since the NFA, the question of classification arises again at the cantonal level when Cantons conclude service agreements with recognised institutions; in this context, the Judgment of the Federal Administrative Court B-191/2013 of 8 January 2015, consid. 3 (subsidies), has clarified principles governing construction subsidies for socio-therapeutic facilities.
N. 19 Relationship between the IFEG and the CRPD. Whether the IFEG in its current form adequately implements the requirements of Art. 19 CRPD (right to independent living) is discussed in recent legal scholarship. Müller/Schefer, Grundrechte in der Schweiz, 5th ed. 2019, p. 763 f., point out that the primarily institution-oriented promotion structure of the IFEG creates tensions with the CRPD principle of «community living», which aims at decentralised, community-based care services. The question of whether Art. 112b para. 3 BV, as a legislative mandate, requires stronger CRPD-compliant implementation has not yet been decided by the highest courts.
#6. Practical Notes
N. 20 NFA transitional law. For proceedings concerning construction and operating subsidies still based on Art. 73 IVG (former version) (financial years up to end of 2007), the Federal Administrative Court retains jurisdiction and the former law applies (Judgment of the Federal Administrative Court C-715/2007 of 20 February 2008, consid. 1.2). For all entitlements arising from 1 January 2008 onwards, the cantonal authorities and the IFEG are determinative.
N. 21 Cantonal obligation to submit a concept. Under Art. 10 IFEG, the Cantons must submit to the Federal Council a concept for the promotion of integration. This concept is to be consulted when interpreting cantonal implementing legislation, but does not give rise to justiciable claims for individuals. In disputes over the level of cantonal contributions, the applicable cantonal social assistance or disability law is therefore primarily determinative.
N. 22 Choice of model: supply-side/demand-side financing. Cantons that switch to demand-side financing (such as the Canton of Berne from 2024 with its Disability Services Act) must create sufficiently specific legal bases at the implementing level. In the absence of such bases, demand-side financing cannot serve as a legal basis for individual cost approvals (Judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Berne 100.2020.275/2021.63U of 10 May 2023, consid. 4.3). The transition must not jeopardise the constitutionally required adequacy of accommodation.
N. 23 Proportionality of cost limitations. Cantons that cap their contribution to care costs must ensure that the remaining costs are genuinely reasonable for the person with a disability. A rigid cost ceiling that results in an uncovered funding gap for persons with exceptionally high care needs violates the principle of proportionality (Judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Berne 100.2020.275/2021.63U of 10 May 2023, consid. 5.7; → Art. 5 para. 2 BV).
N. 24 Cross-references to further relevant bases: ↔ Art. 8 para. 4 BV (equality for persons with disabilities); → Art. 12 BV (right to assistance in situations of need); → Art. 41 BV (social goals, no subjective rights); → Art. 5a BV (principle of subsidiarity, relevant for the delimitation of competences between the Confederation and the Cantons); → Art. 190 BV (binding nature of federal acts, including the IFEG).
#Case Law
#Principles of Allocation of Powers
BGE 146 I 83 para. 2.2 (13.11.2019) Federalist allocation of powers in integration promotion in naturalization proceedings. The judgment deals with the autonomy of citizen communities in assessing integration criteria following ordinary naturalization. The federalist allocation of powers in the area of integration is an expression of the principle of subsidiarity.
«The powers for legislation and legal application in naturalizations are divided between the Confederation, cantons and municipalities. The granting of municipal citizenship lies within the competence of the responsible municipal body, whereby the municipality has wide discretion.»
#Principle of Subsidiarity in Integration Policy
BVGE B-7909/2016 para. 3.1 (14.9.2017) Financial aid for disabled persons integration; application of the principle of subsidiarity. The judgment on promoting the integration of disabled persons concretizes the constitutional principles of the allocation of powers. The principles apply analogously to the promotion of integration of foreign persons under Art. 112b Federal Constitution.
«The principle of subsidiarity is enshrined in Art. 5a Federal Constitution and applies to the allocation and fulfillment of state tasks. It is based on the idea that the Confederation in a federal state should not take on tasks which the member states can fulfill just as well.»
BVGE B-7909/2016 para. 3.2 (14.9.2017) Federal intervention only when cantons are overwhelmed. Concretization of the subsidiary federal competence in integration promotion.
«The competence for public law promotion is not assigned exclusively to the Confederation by the Federal Constitution. As long as the cantons and municipalities are objectively able to promote integration on their own, this promotion is consequently not a federal task.»
#Practical Application in Integration Procedures
BGE 135 I 79 para. 7.2 (24.10.2008)
Swimming lessons and integration of Muslim children.
The judgment on religious freedom in swimming lessons considers the constitutional integration efforts in the balancing of interests.
«In balancing interests, particular consideration must be given to the manifold efforts to integrate the Muslim population group.»
BGE 144 I 266 para. 2 (8.5.2018) Right of residence and integration criteria. Application of integration criteria under Art. 50 Foreign Nationals and Integration Act; indirect application of constitutional foundations.
«The claims under Art. 50 para. 1 Foreign Nationals and Integration Act are not accessible to the foreign (former) cohabitation partner. Residence based on the right to respect for private life requires special integration criteria.»
#Recent Developments
VG BE 100.2020.275 para. 3.1 (10.3.2023) Integration of disabled persons as constitutional mandate. The administrative court judgment refers to the entry into force of Art. 112b para. 2 Federal Constitution and its effects on cantonal implementation.
«With the entry into force of Art. 112b para. 2 of the Federal Constitution (FC; SR 101) on 1 January 2008, the competence to promote the integration of disabled persons was enshrined in constitutional law.»
#Cooperation between Confederation and Cantons
Judgment VG ZH AN.2024.00001 para. 2.3 (17.9.2024) Social policy measures as cantonal competence. Confirmation of primary cantonal competence in integration measures subject to overriding federal interests.
«The introduction of social policy measures is basically to be qualified as cantonal competence, which is compatible with the constitutional allocation of powers.»
#Absence of Direct Citations
Art. 112b Federal Constitution is rarely directly cited by the courts, as it is a competence norm that primarily regulates the allocation of tasks between state levels. Case law usually refers to the implementing laws based on it (Foreign Nationals and Integration Act, Disability Equality Act) and applies the constitutional principles indirectly. The limited direct jurisprudence on Art. 112b Federal Constitution is typical for organizational constitutional provisions, which have their main effect in legislation and administrative practice.