1Freedom of association is guaranteed.
2Every person has the right to form, join or belong to an association and to participate in the activities of an association.
3No person may be compelled to join or to belong to an association.
Art. 23 BV — Freedom of Association
#Overview
Article 23 of the Federal Constitution protects the right to associate with others (Schiess Rütimann, BSK BV, Art. 23 N. 10). Freedom of association is a fundamental right with three dimensions: positive freedom of association (the right to establish associations and join them), negative freedom of association (protection from coercion to membership) and collective freedom of association (the freedom of the association itself).
What does the provision regulate? Art. 23 BV guarantees the freedom to form clubs, parties and other associations and to participate in them (para. 1 and 2). At the same time, it protects against coercion to join an association (para. 3). Associations can be formal associations under Art. 60 et seq. CC or also informal groups without legal structure.
Who is affected? All natural and legal persons can invoke Art. 23 BV. The Federal Supreme Court has ruled that even legal persons with economic purposes can claim protection from compulsory membership (BGE 124 I 107). Freedom of association is particularly relevant for professional associations, political parties, trade unions and citizens' initiatives.
What legal consequences arise? The state may not require permits for the establishment of associations or introduce registration obligations. For associations with a de facto monopoly position (such as important professional associations), there are heightened admission and exclusion obligations (Schiess Rütimann, BSK BV, Art. 23 N. 16). The Federal Supreme Court has established that public service professional associations can claim the right to be heard in important legislative amendments (BGE 129 I 113).
Practical example: If a nurse wants to join the Swiss Professional Association of Nursing Specialists, admission cannot be arbitrarily refused, as the association exercises quasi-monopolistic functions in the profession (BGE 123 III 193). Conversely, an architect cannot be forced to join the architects' association, even if this results in professional disadvantages (Decision 2C_58/2009).
Freedom of association forms an important foundation of democratic society, as it enables political opinion formation and civic engagement (BBl 1997 I 175).
Art. 23 FC — Freedom of Association
#Doctrine
#1. Legislative History
N. 1 Art. 23 FC replaces the former Art. 56 aCst., which merely contained the «right to form associations». The Federal Council described the new formulation as a contemporary concretisation of freedom of association that expressly encompasses both its positive and negative aspects (BBl 1997 I 167 f.). Particular emphasis was placed on the fact that the provision — unlike its predecessor — also protects foreign nationals and defines the concept of association more broadly than does civil law (BBl 1997 I 168).
N. 2 In the preliminary draft of 1995 (PD 95), freedom of association was enshrined in Art. 19; the right to organise followed in Art. 24 PD. The close systematic linkage between the two guarantees was intentional. The Federal Council deliberately refrained from incorporating the prohibition on unlawful or state-endangering associations from Art. 56 aCst. As justification, it argued that such a prohibition was sufficiently covered by the general limitation clause and the provisions of the SCC (BBl 1997 I 168 f.). The three-paragraph structure — basic guarantee, positive freedom of association, negative freedom of association — was deliberately chosen to create legal certainty (BBl 1997 I 563, 592).
N. 3 During the parliamentary deliberations, Art. 23 FC was essentially uncontested. Councillor of States Inderkum, as rapporteur, noted that freedom of association had already previously been recognised as unwritten constitutional law and had been supported by Art. 11 ECHR. In the view of Parliament, the three-paragraph structure brings clarity in particular regarding the negative content of the guarantee, which was most in need of clarification in practice. After several rounds of elimination of differences, both chambers adopted the new Federal Constitution in the final vote on 18 December 1998.
#2. Systematic Classification
N. 4 Art. 23 FC belongs to the classical civil liberties (Art. 7–36 FC) and protects, as an individual defensive right, primarily against State interference in free association. The provision is closely connected to Art. 16 FC (freedom of opinion and information), since collective expression of opinion is regularly organised through associations, and with ↔ Art. 22 FC (freedom of assembly), which protects spontaneous and temporary gatherings, while Art. 23 FC is built on a lasting organisational structure. For the purpose of delimitation: freedom of assembly and freedom of association are distinct fundamental rights; the relevant case law on demonstrations and rallies (BGE 127 I 164; BGE 124 I 267) is therefore to be located under Art. 22 FC and is not examined in depth here.
N. 5 The right to organise (→ Art. 28 FC) is a specific form of freedom of association in the sphere of labour relations. It protects in particular the right to form trade unions and employers' associations and to join or refrain from joining them. Insofar as questions specific to the right to organise are concerned, Art. 28 FC takes precedence as lex specialis. Art. 23 FC applies subsidiarily and in a supplementary capacity.
N. 6 Art. 23 FC as a fundamental right is subject to limitations governed by → Art. 36 FC (legal basis, public interest, proportionality, core essence). The three-stage proportionality test (suitability, necessity, reasonableness) pursuant to Art. 36 para. 3 FC must be applied to interferences with both dimensions of freedom of association. Art. 23 FC applies to natural persons regardless of citizenship, and in principle also to legal entities insofar as their associational activity is affected (BGE 140 I 201 E. 6.5.2).
#3. Elements of the Provision / Normative Content
3.1 Scope of Protection — Positive Freedom of Association (paras. 1 and 2)
N. 7 Para. 1 guarantees freedom of association as a principle; para. 2 gives concrete expression to its positive content. The following are protected: (a) the right to form associations (including founding, shaping the statutes, and determining conditions for admission); (b) the right to join or belong to associations; (c) the right to participate in the activities of associations (contribution, representation, voting). The enumeration is not exhaustive; also protected are indirect effects on associational activity such as internal decision-making, as well as the right to keep one's membership confidential (BGE 140 I 201 E. 6.5.2, citing Rohner, in: St. Galler Kommentar, 2nd ed. 2008, Art. 23 N. 14).
N. 8 The constitutional concept of association is broader than the civil-law concept of a club (Art. 60 ff. CO). It covers any voluntary, organised and lasting form of union among private individuals with a common purpose — regardless of legal form. Political parties, trade unions, professional associations, business associations, religious communities and interest groups are included, as are informal, non-incorporated associations. The Federal Council's dispatch expressly emphasises the «broadly defined concept of association» (BBl 1997 I 168). State-constituted bodies serving the fulfilment of public tasks are not protected.
N. 9 The scope of protection also encompasses the internal autonomy of associations: they may in principle freely determine their purpose, organisational structure, and membership. This includes — which is of particular practical relevance — the right to exclude certain groups of persons from membership. However, limits are set by conflicts with other fundamental rights, notably with ↔ Art. 8 paras. 2 and 3 FC (prohibition of discrimination, equality). For the resolution of such conflicts → N. 15 ff.
3.2 Persons Bound
N. 10 As a defensive right, Art. 23 FC primarily binds the State (Confederation, cantons, municipalities, and private individuals exercising State functions, → Art. 35 para. 2 FC). Protection extends to direct interferences (prohibition, dissolution of an association) as well as to indirect obstacles to the free exercise of associational activity, such as official requirements that effectively steer membership or obstruct activities. Private individuals are in principle not directly bound; they are, however, subject to civil-law limitations (Art. 28 CO, protection of personal rights).
3.3 Negative Freedom of Association (para. 3)
N. 11 Para. 3 explicitly codifies the negative freedom of association: no one may be compelled to join or belong to an association. This dimension was already recognised before 1999 as unwritten constitutional law (BGE 110 Ia 36 E. 3b, 4: «Freedom of association encompasses not only the right to found an association or to belong to one at one's own discretion, but also guarantees the right not to be required to belong to one against one's own will»). By expressly anchoring this guarantee in para. 3, the constituent assembly made clear that it enjoys no lesser protection than the positive dimension.
N. 12 Indirect and economic coercion that effectively compels a person to join or remain in an association also falls within the prohibition of para. 3. This is of particular practical relevance in the field of collective labour law. The Federal Supreme Court held in BGE 124 I 107 E. 4 that a cantonal popular initiative making State business assistance conditional on the conclusion of a collective employment agreement violated negative freedom of association, because it effectively compelled undertakings to join an employers' association; such a measure constituted «une atteinte disproportionnée à la liberté d'association». The same applies to shop closing regulations: in BGE 130 I 279 E. 2.3 f., the Federal Supreme Court held that a Basel ordinance permitting extended shop opening hours only where a specific collective employment agreement was observed was unconstitutional. The linkage of the opening hours regulation to an obligation to comply with a collective employment agreement pursued worker protection — a field exhaustively regulated by federal labour legislation — and simultaneously effected indirect compulsion to conclude or comply with a specific collective employment agreement without observing the statutory requirements for a declaration of general application under federal law.
N. 13 The Federal Supreme Court acknowledges that compulsory membership in public-law bodies may be permissible where there is a sufficient public interest (cf. BGE 124 I 107 E. 4b; BGE 110 Ia 36 E. 3a). However, such compulsory bodies are subject to special restrictions: they may only engage in activities that are compatible with their statutory purpose and the scope of compulsory membership. A public-law body with compulsory membership is in particular obliged to maintain political neutrality; the Federal Supreme Court derived from negative freedom of association the right that the compulsory organisation «not be regarded as a political one» (BGE 110 Ia 36 E. 4). The Federal Administrative Court extended these principles to sector organisations and held that an indirect obligation to contribute through regional cooperative associations may be justified where the requirements of Art. 36 FC are satisfied (BVGE 2021 I/2 of 30 March 2021).
#4. Legal Consequences
N. 14 Violations of Art. 23 FC give rise primarily to the annulment or correction of the unlawful State act (abstract or concrete review of norms, public-law complaint, subsidiary constitutional complaint). State duties to protect arise from Art. 35 para. 1 FC: the Confederation and the cantons must create the legal infrastructure enabling free associational life — in particular through the law of associations in the CO (Art. 60 ff.). State obligations to provide benefits in favour of individual associations do not in principle exist; there is accordingly no unconditional right to State recognition or subsidisation (BGE 140 I 201 E. 6.5.2).
#5. Disputed Questions
N. 15 Conflict of fundamental rights: freedom of association vs. gender equality. The most significant area of contention concerns the conflict between Art. 23 FC (internal associational autonomy, in particular exclusion of members) and Art. 8 paras. 2 and 3 FC (prohibition of discrimination, equality). In BGE 140 I 201 E. 6.6 f., the Federal Supreme Court applied the methodology of a «fair balance» and — relying on the principle of proportionality — allowed the freedom of association of the Zofingia section of Vaud to prevail over the equality objective of the University of Lausanne: since the university had less restrictive means at its disposal and the concrete disadvantages for the excluded women were limited, the refusal of recognition was disproportionate in the circumstances at the time.
N. 16 This solution was met with unanimous criticism in legal scholarship. Buser (PJA 2014, p. 1715 ff.) described the balancing of interests as «one-sidedly focused on the infringement of freedom of association». Weerts (RDAF 2015 I, p. 272 ff.) warned that the judgment could generally curtail equality measures whenever they encounter a fundamental right in its defensive dimension. Riemer (recht 2014, p. 233 f.) saw in the outcome a «recognition of sexual discrimination between private individuals by public law». Errass and Pétermann (St. Galler Kommentar, 4th ed. 2023, Art. 23 N. 24; CR Cst., Art. 23 N. 50) qualified BGE 140 I 201 as «problematic in any case» and the balancing of interests as «contestable». In light of this criticism and socio-political developments (including the Stratégie Égalité 2030 and the ratification of the Istanbul Convention), the Federal Supreme Court changed its case law in BGE 151 I 337 E. 7–9: it recognised that where there is no objective connection between the purpose of the association and the exclusion criterion, the equality obligation of State institutions prevails, provided the core of private-law freedom of association remains unaffected. The core essence of freedom of association is not touched, since the association may continue its private-law activities unimpeded.
N. 17 Direct vs. indirect protective effect. The extent of the indirect third-party effect of Art. 23 FC is disputed. The prevailing doctrine (Häfelin/Haller/Keller/Thurnherr, Schweizerisches Bundesstaatsrecht, 10th ed. 2020, N 749; Müller/Schefer, Grundrechte in der Schweiz, 4th ed. 2008, p. 603 f.) affirms an indirect effect through the general clauses of private law (in particular Art. 28 CO), but rejects direct horizontal binding of private individuals to Art. 23 FC. The Federal Supreme Court follows this approach: BGE 140 I 201 E. 6.5.2 confirms that the protective effect of freedom of association — mediated through Art. 35 para. 2 FC — also operates against State actors who disadvantage associations by withholding benefits.
N. 18 Scope of negative freedom of association in cases of compulsory membership. There is a structural tension between the positive and the negative dimension: overly strict protection against compulsory membership can undermine legitimate collective regulation. Rhinow/Schefer/Uebersax (Schweizerisches Verfassungsrecht, 3rd ed. 2016, N 1862) stress that negative freedom of association must not be understood as an absolute prohibition on any obligatory membership; what is always decisive is the proportionality of the State interference and the weight of the public interest. The Federal Supreme Court confirms this: compulsory memberships are permissible where the purpose of the body corresponds to the restricted sphere of activity (BGE 110 Ia 36 E. 3a) and where no alternative with a lesser degree of interference exists (BGE 124 I 107 E. 4c).
#6. Practical Notes
N. 19 Interference analysis (positive freedom of association). For State measures affecting the formation, joining, or activities of associations, an assessment must always be carried out pursuant to Art. 36 FC: (1) legal basis (principle of legality), (2) public interest or protection of another fundamental right, (3) proportionality (suitability, necessity, reasonableness), (4) core essence (Art. 36 para. 4 FC). Prohibitions of associations require a basis in formal legislation and are subject to particularly strict proportionality requirements. The prohibition of unlawful associations is covered by the SCC and the general limitation clause; an express constitutional basis was deliberately omitted (BBl 1997 I 168 f.).
N. 20 ECHR context. Art. 23 FC is to be interpreted in the light of Art. 11 ECHR, which guarantees freedom of assembly and association including the right to organise. The ECtHR's case law on negative freedom of association (in particular Sigurdur A. Sigurjónsson v. Iceland, 30.6.1993; Gustafsson v. Sweden, 25.4.1996) is authoritative: the State must actively intervene to protect negative freedom of association against impermissible pressure from other private parties (in particular trade unions or employers' associations). The Federal Supreme Court expressly received this case law in BGE 124 I 107 E. 4.
N. 21 Conflicts of fundamental rights. In cases of conflict with Art. 8 FC, the decisive question according to BGE 151 I 337 E. 8.5 is whether there is an objective connection between the purpose of the association and the criterion for exclusion. Where such a connection is absent (as is typically the case with the exclusion of women from a non-gender-specific association), the equality objective of State institutions prevails, provided the core of private-law freedom of association remains unaffected. Associations may continue to invoke Art. 23 FC against private parties; State bodies, by contrast, must carefully balance the interests of both conflicting fundamental rights.
N. 22 Right to organise and collective employment agreements. The conditioning of State benefits or licences on membership in or compliance with a collective employment agreement is only permissible where the requirements for a declaration of general application are observed. Authorities may not use shop closing or licensing law as a means of pressure to enforce worker protection concerns exhaustively regulated by federal law (BGE 130 I 279 E. 2.3 f.; BGE 124 I 107 E. 4c). In particular, the indirect linking of operating licences to collective employment agreement obligations is to be characterised as impermissible indirect compulsory membership within the meaning of Art. 23 para. 3 FC.
N. 23 Compulsory membership in sector organisations. Obligations to contribute to and membership in economic sector organisations must be assessed against the requirements of Art. 36 FC. A sufficient legal basis, a legitimate public interest (e.g. market regulation, quality assurance) and proportionality are cumulatively required. The Federal Administrative Court held in BVGE 2021 I/2 that the proportionality of an indirect contribution obligation through regional cooperative associations was satisfied insofar as Art. 36 FC was met. In the case of compulsory bodies in the field of student representation, the obligation of political neutrality applies (BGE 110 Ia 36 E. 3b, 4).
Art. 23 BV — Freedom of Association
#Case Law
#Foundations of Freedom of Association
BGE 124 I 107 of 29 April 1998
Positive and negative freedom of association as two sides of one guarantee. Negative freedom of association guarantees the right not to belong to an association or to leave it.
Fundamental definition of freedom of association in the context of a cantonal popular initiative on collective labour agreement law.
«Art. 56 Cst. garantit la liberté d'association. Dans son aspect positif, cette liberté permet aux particuliers de créer des associations, d'en devenir membre, d'exercer en leur sein des activités, et de les dissoudre. Dans son aspect négatif, elle garantit le droit de ne pas être obligé de faire partie d'une association, ou de la quitter.»
BGE 110 Ia 36 of 25 January 1984
Negative freedom of association in cases of compulsory membership in public law corporations. Students have a claim to ensure that their compulsory corporation is not regarded as a political organisation.
Fundamental judgment on negative freedom of association in cases of involuntary membership.
«Aus dem negativen Effekt der verfassungsmässigen Garantie der Vereinsfreiheit lässt sich der Anspruch darauf ableiten, dass die Organisation, der die Studierenden von Gesetzes wegen und ohne Austrittsmöglichkeit angehören, nicht als eine politische betrachtet wird.»
#Freedom of Association and Gender Equality
BGE 140 I 201 of 21 March 2014
Collision of fundamental rights between freedom of association and equality of men and women. Universities may refuse to grant university association status to a student fraternity that excludes women.
First landmark judgment on resolving the collision between freedom of association and gender equality.
«Darf ein Verwaltungsträger, der eine staatliche Aufgabe wahrnimmt und deswegen an die Grundrechte gebunden ist, einer zivilrechtlichen Studentenverbindung den Status als universitäre Vereinigung verwehren und die zugehörigen Leistungen verweigern, weil sie Frauen von der Mitgliedschaft ausschliesst?»
BGE 151 I 337 of 25 March 2025
Change in case law in favour of gender equality. The university can refuse recognition to an exclusively male student fraternity if there is no objective connection between the association's purpose and gender exclusion.
Current case law on balancing freedom of association and the prohibition of discrimination.
«Die Universität verfügt aufgrund ihrer Autonomie über ein erhebliches Entscheidungsermessen bezüglich der Anerkennung einer universitären Vereinigung. Sie muss jedoch ein ausgewogenes Verhältnis zwischen den verschiedenen Grundrechten, an welche sie gebunden ist, wahren.»
#Freedom of Association and Freedom of Assembly
BGE 127 I 164 of 20 September 2001
Freedom of opinion and assembly in demonstrations on public ground. Licensing requirement and balancing of interests with consideration of the ideal content of fundamental rights.
Leading decision on the practical exercise of collective fundamental rights in public space.
«In materieller Hinsicht machen die Beschwerdeführer eine Verletzung der Meinungs- und Versammlungsfreiheit geltend. Das Vorhandensein einer kommunalen gesetzlichen Grundlage für das Erfordernis einer Bewilligung zur Durchführung von Kundgebungen auf öffentlichem Grund bestreiten sie nicht.»
BGE 124 I 267 of 26 August 1998
Freedom of assembly and location restrictions. No right to hold a rally in a specific public square. Admissibility of a general prohibition on demonstrations where a square has a special function.
Limits of freedom of assembly in specific local circumstances.
«Kundgebungen auf öffentlichem Grund stellen eine Form des gesteigerten Gemeingebrauchs dar und dürfen daher weitergehenden Beschränkungen unterworfen werden als Versammlungen auf privatem Grund.»
#Negative Freedom of Association and Compulsory Membership
BGE 130 I 279 of 13 July 2004
Violation of negative freedom of association through compulsory binding to collective labour agreements. Cantonal provisions that link extended opening hours to compliance with collective labour agreements are disproportionate.
Application of negative freedom of association in labour law.
«Eine kantonale Ladenschlussvorschrift, wonach verlängerte Öffnungszeiten nur bei Beachtung eines Gesamtarbeitsvertrages bewilligt werden, verletzt die negative Vereinigungsfreiheit, da sie faktisch zum Beitritt zu einem Arbeitgeberverband zwingt.»
BVGE 2021 I/2 of 30 March 2021
Compulsory membership in trade organisations. Indirect contribution obligation via regional cooperative associations can be justified if the requirements of Art. 36 BV are met.
Current practice on negative freedom of association in cases of economic compulsory associations.
«Die positive Vereinigungsfreiheit umfasst das Recht, Vereinigungen zu bilden, Vereinigungen beizutreten oder anzugehören und sich an den Tätigkeiten von Vereinigungen zu beteiligen (sog. positive Vereinigungsfreiheit). Der Schutz vor Zwangsmitgliedschaft (sog. negative Vereinigungsfreiheit) wird durch Art. 23 Abs. 3 BV garantiert.»
#Freedom of Association in Criminal Proceedings
Judgment 6P.33/2006 of 15 May 2006
Freedom of association as an objection in criminal proceedings. Freedom of opinion, information and association can also be violated in the criminal law context.
Procedural aspects of freedom of association.
«Art. 9 BV (Strafverfahren; Willkür); Art. 16 BV (Meinungs- und Informationsfreiheit); Art. 23 BV (Vereinigungsfreiheit). Verfahrensrechtlicher Schutz der Grundrechte auch im Strafverfahren.»
#Private Education and Freedom of Association
Judgment 2C_807/2015 of 18 October 2016
Licence to operate a private school with kindergarten level. Freedom of association also encompasses the right to establish and operate educational institutions.
Freedom of association in the education sector under consideration of state supervisory duty.
«Ein Verein kann zur Wahrung der eigenen Interessen Beschwerde führen, wenn er durch staatliche Massnahmen in seiner grundrechtlich geschützten Vereinigungsfreiheit betroffen ist.»