The Confederation is responsible for legislation on weights and measures.
Overview
Article 125 Federal Constitution grants the Confederation exclusive competence for all legislation on metrology (Göksu, BSK BV, Art. 125 N. 5). This competence has existed since the first Federal Constitution of 1848 and serves to unify law in commercial transactions (Botsch. BV, BBl 1997 I 368).
Metrology comprises three main areas: the definition of units of measurement (such as metre, kilogram, second), the technical requirements for measuring instruments and their regular calibration (verification of accuracy) (Art. 2 para. 1 MetrO; Göksu, BSK BV, Art. 125 N. 2-4). The Confederation has implemented this competence through the Federal Act on Metrology (MetrO).
All enterprises and persons using measuring instruments in commercial transactions are affected. This includes petrol stations with fuel pumps, bakeries with scales, electricity companies with electricity meters or taxi companies with tachographs (Art. 3 MetrO). These measuring instruments must be approved by the Federal Institute of Metrology (METAS) and regularly calibrated.
The legal consequences of violations are significant: Non-calibrated measuring instruments may not be used in commercial transactions (Art. 3 MetrO). The Federal Supreme Court has confirmed that enterprises are generally free to choose measuring service providers, as long as no statutory monopolies exist (BGE 143 I 395).
A concrete example: A bakery must have its scales calibrated every two years. If the scales show incorrect values, METAS can order immediate replacement (BVGer A-272/2013). The cantons conduct inspections, but cannot enact their own metrology laws (BGer 2C_1007/2015).
N. 1 Federal competence for metrology has a long tradition in Swiss constitutional law. Already Art. 37 of the Federal Constitution of 1848 transferred legislation on measures and weights to the Confederation. This competence was continued in Art. 40 para. 1 old FC and was adopted in 1999 in its present formulation in Art. 125 FC (Göksu, BSK FC, Art. 125 N. 1; Brunner, SG Comm. FC, Art. 125 N. 1).
N. 2 The message on the new Federal Constitution emphasised that the regulation of metrology represents a classic federal task which serves legal harmonisation and the protection of honest business transactions (Message FC, FG 1997 I 1, 368). The constitutional revision of 1999 did not lead to any material change in federal competence, but merely adapted the terminology to modern circumstances.
N. 3 Art. 125 FC is found in Title 3 on the Confederation, Cantons and Communes, in Chapter 2 on competences. The provision establishes an exclusive federal competence, as follows from the wording "is a matter for the Confederation" (→ Art. 3 FC). The cantons have no residual legislative competence in the area of metrology (Göksu, BSK FC, Art. 125 N. 5).
N. 4 The metrology competence stands in systematic connection with economic freedom (→ Art. 27 FC) and federal competence for private law (→ Art. 122 FC). It serves the realisation of the unified economic area of Switzerland (→ Art. 95 FC) through standardisation of units of measurement (Häfelin/Haller/Keller, Federal Constitutional Law, N 1254).
N. 5 The concept of "metrology" encompasses, according to prevailing doctrine, three areas: (1) the definition of units of measurement and their standards, (2) the requirements for measuring instruments and measuring procedures as well as (3) the supervision and calibration of measuring devices (Göksu, BSK FC, Art. 125 N. 2-4; Vaucher/Niederhauser, METinfo 3/2007, 10 ff.).
N. 6 Federal competence extends to all types of measurements in commercial transactions, regardless of the object measured. This covers physical quantities such as length, mass, time, temperature, electric current, amount of substance and luminous intensity as well as units derived from them (Art. 2 para. 1 MIA; Art. 3 ff. Units Ordinance).
N. 7 However, evaluations and estimates without a physical measurement basis as well as purely private measurements without reference to commercial transactions do not belong to metrology within the meaning of Art. 125 FC (Aubert/Mahon, Petit commentaire, Art. 125 N. 3).
N. 8 As an exclusive federal competence, Art. 125 FC excludes any cantonal legislation in the area of metrology. The Confederation has exercised its competence through the Federal Act on Metrology (MIA) and its implementing decrees (Göksu, BSK FC, Art. 125 N. 5-13).
N. 9 The cantons are restricted to the implementation of federal law. They may act as calibration offices insofar as federal law provides for this (Art. 15 para. 1 MIA). They may not enact their own material provisions on metrology (BGer 2C_1007/2015 consid. 3.2).
N. 10 Private parties are subject to the calibration obligation for measuring instruments in commercial transactions (Art. 3 MIA). However, the choice of measurement service provider remains protected by economic freedom, insofar as no legal monopoly exists (BGE 143 I 395 consid. 4.3).
N. 11 The scope of federal competence for new measurement technologies is disputed. While Vaucher/Niederhauser/Richard (METinfo 1/2008, 4 ff.) advocate an application-oriented approach that also fully encompasses intelligent measurement systems, other authors represent a more restrictive interpretation for purely digital measurement procedures without a physical component.
N. 12 The relationship between metrology competence and data protection is also controversially discussed. The METAS database contains sensitive information about measuring device owners. Zen-Ruffinen (FC 1874, Art. 125 N. 8) demands a strict separation between measurement technology and data protection aspects, while practice prefers an integrative approach (FDPIC recommendation of 18.2.2014).
N. 13 When introducing new measuring devices, the calibration obligation under Art. 3 MIA must be observed. METAS as the Federal Office of Metrology is the first point of contact for questions on conformity and approval (Art. 15 para. 2 MIA).
N. 14 Companies should observe the transitional periods when replacing measuring devices. The Federal Administrative Court examines the proportionality of replacement orders and takes into account the economic interests of those affected (BVGer A-272/2013 consid. 5.3).
N. 15 In the area of electricity measurement, there is no legal monopoly for measurement services. Grid operators cannot compulsory perform the measurement themselves, but must respect the economic freedom of producers (BGE 143 I 395).
BGE 143 I 395 (14 July 2017)
The choice of measuring service provider is subject to the electricity producer's economic freedom. The Federal Supreme Court found that no legal monopoly exists for metrology and that measuring services do not belong to the monopolised network operation.
«There is thus a legal exclusive right of the network operator for network operation in its territory, but otherwise economic freedom prevails. In particular, there is no (express) legal monopoly for metrology.»
BGer 2C_1007/2015 (10 May 2016)
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the comprehensive federal competence under Art. 125 BV for the regulation of metrology. Legislation on metrology is exclusively a federal matter, including the approval and verification of measuring instruments.
«Legislation on metrology is a federal matter (Art. 125 BV). The MessG regulates in particular measuring instruments (Art. 1 lit. b MessG).»
BVGer A-272/2013 (21 November 2013)
The Federal Administrative Court dealt with the non-conformity of electricity meters and METAS measures. The decision concerned the proportionality of replacement measures for faulty measuring instruments.
«There is a significant public interest in ensuring measuring accuracy and fair dealing in trade and commerce (Art. 1 lit. a MessMV), as end consumers should be protected from excessive electricity bills.»
The court examined the proportionality of the ordered measures and found that economic damage must be taken into account when setting replacement deadlines.
BVGer A-3051/2015 (1 October 2015)
Further case law on electrical products and the application of the Measuring Instruments Ordinance by METAS. The decision was confirmed by the Federal Supreme Court (BGer 2C_1007/2015).
Kantonsgericht Basel-Landschaft 460 12 100 (4 September 2012)
The court dealt with METAS's dual function in the verification and expertise of measuring instruments in road traffic. The Federal Act on Metrology expressly provides for this dual function by law.
«The Federal Act on Metrology expressly provides by law for a dual function of METAS regarding verification and expertise.»
Obergericht Nidwalden SA 23 11 (13 August 2024)
Recent decision on the application of metrology in speed measurements. The court referred to the messages on the Federal Act on Metrology and the legal basis for measuring procedures in road traffic.
BL-Gerichte 810 21 69 (17 August 2021)
The Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft dealt with a fee ruling concerning the verification of measuring accuracy of scales. The decision shows the practical application of the Measuring Instruments Ordinance by cantonal authorities in the enforcement of federal law.
FDPIC Recommendation (18 February 2014)
The Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner dealt with access requests to the METAS database and the limits of the duty to provide information regarding measuring instrument data.
«METAS justified the refusal of access to the data field 'owner or user of measuring instruments' by invoking Art. 7 para. 1 lit. b BGÖ.»
ElCom Decisions 2024-2025
Several recent decisions of the Electricity Commission on the replacement of conventional electricity meters with intelligent measuring systems (smart meters) show the modern application of federal competence for metrology.
The case law confirms the comprehensive federal competence under Art. 125 BV and shows its practical application in various areas from electricity measurement to traffic measurements and medical measuring instruments. The courts have consistently kept in mind the proportionality of state measures and the protection of private interests.