The Federal Assembly has parliamentary services at its disposal. It may call on the services of offices of the Federal Administration. The details are regulated by law.
Overview
Art. 155 FC regulates the organisational equipment of the Federal Assembly with its own services. The provision ensures that parliament can work independently of the government.
The Federal Assembly has the right to its own parliamentary services. These are specialised administrative units that work exclusively for parliament. They include the Secretariat General, the scientific services, translators and technical personnel. These employees report directly to parliament and not to the federal administration.
Additionally, parliament can also ask offices of the federal administration for assistance. For example, a committee can invite experts from a federal office to a hearing. However, these civil servants remain employed in their normal positions and only assist temporarily.
The Parliamentary Act (Act on the Federal Assembly) regulates the details. It determines how the parliamentary services are organised and what tasks they have.
This regulation is important for the separation of powers (separation of state power). Parliament must be able to decide independently of the government. Without its own services, it would be dependent on the government and could not properly control it.
A practical example: When a committee of the National Council deliberates on a complicated law, the scientific services help with the legal analysis. They prepare neutral reports and explain difficult points. This enables parliamentarians to make well-founded decisions without being dependent solely on information from the government.
The parliamentary services are subject to special confidentiality rules. Documents for committees are not publicly accessible in order to enable free discussions.
Doctrine
#1. Legislative History
N. 1 Art. 155 Cst. was introduced as an independent organizational provision in the context of the total revision of the Federal Constitution in 1999. The provision on parliamentary services was not previously found explicitly in the Federal Constitution of 1874, but was regulated in various parliamentary legal enactments. The Federal Council Message on a new Federal Constitution (BBl 1997 I 1, 377) states that Art. 155 Cst. was intended to constitutionally anchor the existing practice of parliamentary self-administration: «The Federal Assembly has its own services. These should continue to perform their support function in the future.»
N. 2 The constitutional legislator wanted to strengthen the autonomy of the Federal Assembly vis-à-vis the executive through Art. 155 Cst. The possibility of calling upon administrative units of the federal administration (para. 1 sentence 2) was deliberately conceived as a supplement and not as an alternative to the Parliament's own services. This underscores the independence of the legislature in the system of separation of powers (BBl 1997 I 377).
#2. Systematic Classification
N. 3 Art. 155 Cst. is located in Title 5 (Federal Authorities), Chapter 1 (Federal Assembly), Section 2 (Procedure). The systematic position immediately after the procedural provisions (Art. 152-154 Cst.) and before the competence norms (Art. 156 ff. Cst.) shows that parliamentary services are understood as an integral part of parliamentary work. The provision is closely connected to → Art. 148 Cst. (Position of the Federal Assembly) and → Art. 150 Cst. (Parliamentary Oversight).
N. 4 The constitutional anchoring of parliamentary services serves the separation of powers (→ Art. 144 Cst.). As an organizational norm, Art. 155 Cst. guarantees the administrative independence of the legislature. The connection to → Art. 169 Cst. (Oversight) becomes clear, as parliamentary services create the factual prerequisites for effective parliamentary control (St. Galler Commentary Cst., Sägesser, Art. 155 N. 3).
#3. Elements of the Provision / Content of the Norm
#3.1 Parliamentary Services (Para. 1 Sentence 1)
N. 5 The term «parliamentary services» encompasses all administrative units that work exclusively for the Federal Assembly. This includes the Secretariat General of the Federal Assembly, the scientific services, the translation services and the technical services. The parliamentary services are organizationally separated from the federal administration and are subject to the overall direction of the Administrative Delegation of the Federal Assembly (BSK Cst., Sägesser, Art. 155 N. 5-7).
N. 6 The wording «has» establishes a constitutional claim of the Federal Assembly to its own services. This excludes complete outsourcing of parliamentary support functions to the executive. The scope of parliamentary services is determined by the needs of a functional parliamentary operation (Häfelin/Haller/Keller/Thurnherr, Federal Constitutional Law, N. 1638).
#3.2 Calling Upon the Federal Administration (Para. 1 Sentence 2)
N. 7 The possibility of «calling upon administrative units of the federal administration» allows the Federal Assembly to draw on specialized expertise from the executive. This particularly concerns the participation of federal offices in parliamentary committees or the provision of expert opinions. The calling upon occurs subsidiarily and supplementary to the Parliament's own services (St. Galler Commentary Cst., Sägesser, Art. 155 N. 8).
N. 8 The administrative units called upon remain organizationally part of the executive but act for parliamentary purposes. This raises questions of authority to issue instructions and confidentiality, which are regulated by Art. 150 para. 2 ParlA: The administrative units are subject to the instructions of the committee presidiums for their parliamentary activity (BSK Cst., Sägesser, Art. 155 N. 9).
#3.3 Legislative Mandate (Para. 2)
N. 9 The reference to the legal regulation of «details» is to be understood as a comprehensive legislative mandate. The Parliamentary Act (ParlA, SR 171.10) specifies in Art. 64-68 the organization and tasks of parliamentary services. The legislator has wide discretion but must respect the constitutional basic conception of independent parliamentary services (Rhinow/Schefer/Uebersax, Constitutional Law, N. 2842).
#4. Legal Consequences
N. 10 Art. 155 Cst. establishes an organizational guarantee in favor of the Federal Assembly. This includes:
- The right to its own administrative units independent of the executive
- The competence for independent organization of these services
- The authority to hire and manage personnel
- Budgetary autonomy within the framework of parliamentary self-administration
N. 11 For the administrative units called upon, special loyalty obligations arise. During their parliamentary activity, they are subject to official secrecy under Art. 47 ParlA and not to administrative internal official secrecy. This can lead to conflicts with the departmental chain of command (St. Galler Commentary Cst., Sägesser, Art. 155 N. 10).
N. 12 Parliamentary services are subject to the Freedom of Information Act only to a limited extent. According to Art. 2 para. 1 lit. c FOIA, they are covered in principle, but the special provisions of the ParlA (particularly Art. 47 ParlA concerning committee secrecy) take precedence as lex specialis (FDPIC Recommendation of 24 August 2020, 32.20.2).
#5. Points of Dispute
N. 13 Scope of parliamentary autonomy: In doctrine, there is dispute about how far the organizational autonomy of parliamentary services extends. Sägesser (BSK Cst., Art. 155 N. 11) advocates an extensive interpretation whereby parliamentary services must be independent from the executive in all matters. In contrast, Müller (Parliamentary Law of Switzerland, 2022, 487) pleads for a functional view: Only insofar as independence is necessary for parliamentary work does constitutional protection exist.
N. 14 Personnel law status: The applicability of the Federal Personnel Act to parliamentary services is controversially discussed. While Tschannen (in: Tschannen/Zimmerli/Müller, General Administrative Law, § 23 N. 45) favors complete application of the FPA, Biaggini (Cst. Commentary, Art. 155 N. 3) and the St. Gallen school consider an independent personnel law system admissible. Practice follows a differentiated approach with basic application of the FPA subject to Parliament-specific regulations.
N. 15 Scope of the right to call upon: There is disagreement about the limits of the right to call upon administrative units. Graf (Parliamentary Investigative Committees, 2021, 234) argues for a broad interpretation that also allows temporary secondment of entire offices. The prevailing doctrine (St. Galler Commentary Cst., Sägesser, Art. 155 N. 12; BSK Cst., Sägesser, Art. 155 N. 13) limits the right to call upon to specific support services and denies permanent integration of administrative units into the parliamentary organization.
#6. Practical Notes
N. 16 In delimiting between parliamentary services' own administrative activity and their staff function for Parliament, reference should be made to the concrete purpose of use. Documents created for parliamentary bodies are subject to committee secrecy under Art. 47 ParlA, while purely administrative documents may be subject to the FOIA.
N. 17 The calling upon of administrative units should be agreed in writing with clear regulation of authority to issue instructions, confidentiality obligations and cost bearing. Administrative units remain assigned to their parent organization even during parliamentary deployment, which must be considered in resource planning.
N. 18 For practical cooperation between parliamentary services and the federal administration, designation of contact persons on both sides is recommended. For longer-term projects, agreements on the modalities of cooperation (Service Level Agreements) are expedient to avoid competence conflicts.
Case Law
#Public Law Decisions of the Parliamentary Services
#Applicability of the Freedom of Information Act to the Parliamentary Services
FDPIC Recommendation of 24 August 2020 (Case No. 32.20.2)
Date: 24 August 2020
Key Decision: The Parliamentary Services are subject to the Freedom of Information Act only insofar as they do not act directly for the Federal Assembly or individual organs thereof.
Relevance: Fundamental clarification of the distinction between the Parliamentary Services' own administrative activities and their function as staff for Parliament.
«According to the message, the Parliamentary Services themselves are subject to the Freedom of Information Act only insofar as they do not act directly for the Federal Assembly and its organs. Thus, documents for the federal chambers [...] are public due to special legal provisions (Art. 4 para. 1 ParlA), while documents for parliamentary committees are subject to confidentiality (Art. 47 ParlA).»
FDPIC Recommendation of 19 June 2009 (Case No. 18.09.20)
Date: 19 June 2009
Key Decision: Art. 47 ParlA constitutes a special provision within the meaning of Art. 4 FOIA that takes precedence over the Freedom of Information Act.
Relevance: Confirmation of the precedence of parliamentary confidentiality provisions over general freedom of information law.
«The Freedom of Information Act applies to the Parliamentary Services, among others, in addition to the Federal Administration (Art. 2 para. 1 lit. c FOIA). However, they are subject to the Freedom of Information Act only insofar as they do not act directly for the Federal Assembly or individual organs thereof.»
FDPIC Recommendation of 2 November 2009 (Case No. 29.09.21)
Date: 2 November 2009
Key Decision: Additional documents for parliamentary finance committees fall under the reservation of Art. 47 ParlA in conjunction with Art. 4 FOIA.
Relevance: Extension of parliamentary confidentiality protection to Federal Administration documents created for parliamentary work.
«The Parliamentary Services are subject to the Freedom of Information Act only insofar as they do not act directly for the Federal Assembly or individual organs thereof. ‹For reasons of consistency, this must also apply analogously to the rest of the Federal Administration: insofar as documents [...] are created for parliamentary purposes›.»
#Public Procurement and Transparency
FDPIC Recommendation of 6 December 2016 (Case No. 41.16.16)
Date: 6 December 2016
Key Decision: Federal Chancellery procurement statistics must contain information on the Federal Council and Federal Assembly, insofar as they fall within the Federal Chancellery's area of responsibility.
Relevance: Delineation of transparency obligations between different federal organs for joint administrative tasks.
«The mediation procedure thus relates to the three documents submitted by the FCh for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014, insofar as they do not mention the procurement payments of the Federal Council and the Federal Assembly.»
#Parliamentary Law Developments on Organisation
#Reorganisation of the Parliamentary Services (1988)
National Council Motion 88.729 of 29 September 1988
Date: 5 October 1988 (Council of States)
Key Decision: Referral of a motion concerning performance review of the Parliamentary Services reorganisation.
Relevance: Parliamentary control over the implementation of Art. 155 FC through regular reporting.
«The Administrative Committee conducts a performance review of the reorganisation every two years and reports to Parliament.»
National Council Motion 88.730 of 29 September 1988
Date: 5 October 1988 (Council of States)
Key Decision: Implementation of new services for parliamentarians, particularly PC workstations with database access.
Relevance: Early digitalisation of parliamentary infrastructure as an expression of Art. 155 FC.
«In the second session after the federal decree on reorganisation enters into force, a draft resolution on the implementation of new services for parliamentarians [...] is to be submitted to the chambers.»
#Election of the Secretary General
Zbinden Motion 82.371 of 20 March 1984
Date: 20 March 1984
Key Decision: Election of the Secretary General of the Federal Assembly by the United Federal Assembly rather than by the Bureau.
Relevance: Democratisation of senior positions in the Parliamentary Services as a specification of Art. 155 FC.
«In the election of the Director of the Federal Audit Office or the Secretary General by the United Federal Assembly [this could] trigger follow-up requests [...], since no comparisons with similar positions are evident.»
#Development of Case Law
#Early Phase (1984-1990): Organisational Reforms
In the initial phase after the constitutional revision of 1874, the structural reorganisation of the Parliamentary Services was paramount. The parliamentary initiatives from the 1980s show the effort to strengthen parliamentary autonomy through more democratic election procedures and to utilise new technological possibilities.
#Digitalisation Phase (1988-2000): Technical Modernisation
The decisions from the late 1980s document the early digitalisation of Parliament. Particularly significant is the introduction of PC workstations for all parliamentarians, which can be regarded as pioneering for modern parliamentary work.
#Transparency Phase (2003-today): Public Law Delineation
With the entry into force of the Freedom of Information Act in 2003, differentiated case law developed on the distinction between the Parliamentary Services' own administrative activities and their function as staff for Parliament. The FDPIC recommendations since 2009 increasingly specify this distinction.
#Current Developments (2020-today): Digital Transparency
Recent case law shows the area of tension between parliamentary autonomy and transparency requirements in the digital society. Questions of data protection and parliamentary control functions are particularly relevant.
#Relationship to Art. 64 ff. ParlA
Case law confirms that Art. 155 FC is fully specified by the Parliament Act. BGE 133 II 209 of 25 May 2007 clarified with regard to the Federal Court organisation that inspection of official documents of management bodies is possible under the general conditions of the Freedom of Information Act, provided that special statutory regulations do not take precedence.
FDPIC Recommendation of 25 June 2014 (Case No. 23.14.15)
Date: 25 June 2014
Key Decision: Art. 47 ParlA takes precedence over the Freedom of Information Act as a special provision, even for third-party documents.
Relevance: Far-reaching protection of parliamentary consultation documents.
«The IPI is of the opinion that by commissioning the Legal Committee, the draft implementing ordinance automatically acquired the quality of a confidential committee document, thus being confidential according to Art. 47 ParlA.»