Art. 24 FC – Freedom of Domicile

#Doctrine

#1. Legislative History

N. 1 Art. 24 FC continues, almost verbatim, the freedom of domicile enshrined in Art. 45 para. 1 of the Federal Constitution of 1874. In its dispatch, the Federal Council described the provision as substantively continuous with the existing constitutional law: «La liberté d'établissement correspond à l'art. 45 al. 1 Cst. en vigueur» [The freedom of domicile corresponds to the current Art. 45 para. 1 FC] (BBl 1997 I 169). The cantons and communes remain obliged to permit every Swiss national to take up domicile on their territory (BBl 1997 I 169).

N. 2 In comparison with the preliminary draft of 1995 (PD 1995) and the dispatch draft, two substantive decisions were made: first, the freedom of domicile was expressly restricted to Swiss nationals; an extension to resident foreign nationals had been discussed in the consultation procedure but was explicitly rejected by the Federal Council (BBl 1997 I 169). Second, the right to leave the country and to enter Switzerland was expressly codified in paragraph 2, in order to secure constitutionally guaranteed access to Switzerland for Swiss nationals born abroad (BBl 1997 I 592).

N. 3 The wording of paragraph 2 was contested during the parliamentary proceedings. Council of States member Marty Dick (Rapporteur, TI) noted in the Council of States debates that Swiss nationals born abroad should be accorded the right to enter («entrer en Suisse») rather than the right to return («revenir»). This correction reflects the fact that Swiss nationals who have never lived in Switzerland cannot have a right to «return» in the technical sense, but should nonetheless enjoy the right of entry as part of their nationality. The two-paragraph structure — domicile within Switzerland (para. 1) and freedom of departure and entry (para. 2) — was adopted by both chambers in the final vote of 18 December 1998.

---

#2. Systematic Classification

N. 4 Art. 24 FC forms part of the catalogue of fundamental rights (Art. 7–36 FC) and is structured as a classical liberty right. The provision contains two substantively related but structurally independent guarantees: freedom of domicile within Switzerland (para. 1) and freedom of departure and entry (para. 2). Both guarantees are subjective defensive rights against state interference; they do not establish claims to positive state performance (Häfelin/Haller/Keller/Thurnherr, Schweizerisches Bundesstaatsrecht, 10th ed. 2020, N 463).

N. 5 The fundamental right protects a specific form of personal liberty (↔ Art. 10 para. 2 FC) — namely spatial mobility — and is therefore closely connected with the general freedom of action. It overlaps with economic freedom (→ Art. 27 FC) insofar as occupational mobility frequently depends on the choice of place of domicile; the Federal Supreme Court has, however, clarified that for sovereign activities Art. 24 FC alone is authoritative, while Art. 27 FC does not apply (BGE 128 I 280 E. 3). With regard to departure and entry, parallels exist with Art. 2 Protocol No. 4 ECHR, which guarantees freedom of movement within the Contracting States as well as the right of everyone to leave any country and the right to enter the country of which one is a national (Rhinow/Schefer/Uebersax, Schweizerisches Verfassungsrecht, 3rd ed. 2016, N 1590 ff.).

N. 6 The conditions for restricting the right are governed by Art. 36 FC: a legal basis (para. 1), public interest or protection of the fundamental rights of others (para. 2), proportionality (para. 3), and inviolability of the core essence (para. 4). → Art. 36 FC applies to all fundamental rights articles (Art. 7–34 FC).

---

#3. Elements of the Right / Normative Content

3.1 Personal Scope (para. 1 and 2)

N. 7 Art. 24 FC is available exclusively to Swiss nationals. The determining criterion is nationality within the meaning of the Citizenship Act (SR 141.0). Persons holding dual nationality are included. Resident foreign nationals cannot rely on Art. 24 FC; for them, the Foreigners and Integration Act (FIA, SR 142.20) and the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons with the EU (AFMP, SR 0.142.112.681) constitute the applicable legal bases (Häfelin/Haller/Keller/Thurnherr, op. cit., N 463). This legislative decision to restrict the right to Swiss citizens was deliberate and corresponds to the substance of the former Art. 45 FC 1874 (BBl 1997 I 169).

N. 8 Art. 24 FC applies equally and without restriction to persons subject to guardianship or to a deputyship; their status as persons in need of protection does not affect their capacity to hold the right. However, Art. 377 para. 1 CC may make a change of domicile subject to prior approval by the child and adult protection authority. This reservation is constitutionally permissible but must be applied proportionately (BGE 131 I 266 E. 3).

3.2 Material Scope: Freedom of Domicile (para. 1)

N. 9 The material scope of para. 1 encompasses the possibility of residing personally at any place in Switzerland. The Federal Supreme Court expressed this in its leading formula as follows: «Die Niederlassungsfreiheit gewährleistet damit die Möglichkeit persönlichen Verweilens an jedem beliebigen Ort der Schweiz; sie gebietet den Kantonen und Gemeinden, jedem Schweizerbürger die Niederlassung auf ihrem Gebiet zu erlauben, und verbietet ihnen gleichzeitig, die Verlegung des einmal gewählten Wohnsitzes zu verhindern oder zu erschweren» [The freedom of domicile thus guarantees the possibility of residing personally at any place in Switzerland; it obliges the cantons and communes to permit every Swiss citizen to take up domicile on their territory, while simultaneously prohibiting them from preventing or impeding the transfer of an already chosen domicile] (BGE 128 I 280 E. 4.1.1; referring to BGE 108 Ia 248 E. 1). The provision thus has a positive dimension (the right to take up domicile in the chosen territory) and a negative dimension (prohibition of impediment to a change of domicile).

N. 10 «Domicile» within the meaning of para. 1 refers to the civil-law domicile as defined in Art. 23 ff. CC, i.e. the place where a person resides with the intention of permanent stay. The concept therefore covers not merely a short-term stay but permanent settlement. Registration obligations in connection with a stay in a commune other than the commune of domicile for professional reasons do not restrict freedom of domicile, provided they are not structured as a requirement for approval (Caselaw layer, BGE 148 I 97).

N. 11 The fundamental right contains a federal dimension: in a federal state in which the cantons and communes form their own sovereign territories, Art. 24 para. 1 FC prohibits any public authority from preventing or impeding Swiss nationals who are not residents of the canton concerned from taking up domicile there. This is the historical core content of the provision, which traces back to the abolition of cantonal barriers to domicile that existed prior to 1874 (Müller/Schefer, Grundrechte in der Schweiz, 4th ed. 2008, p. 728).

3.3 Material Scope: Freedom of Departure and Entry (para. 2)

N. 12 Paragraph 2 guarantees the right to leave Switzerland (freedom of departure) and to enter Switzerland (freedom of entry). Both rights are designed as subjective defensive rights. The freedom of departure protects against state measures that prevent a person from leaving the territory — for example through withdrawal of a passport, exit bans, or practical impediments such as the refusal of a deregistration certificate due to tax debts (cf. Caselaw layer, BGE 127 I 97). The freedom of entry secures every Swiss national's right to enter their own country; it cannot be undermined by state measures that effectively prevent entry.

N. 13 Unlike Art. 2 Protocol No. 4 ECHR, which formulates the right of entry in relation to «one's own country», Art. 24 para. 2 FC is restricted ratione personae to persons holding Swiss nationality. Foreign nationals cannot rely on para. 2; foreign nationals law and, where applicable, the AFMP constitute the governing legal framework for them. The deliberate decision not to extend the provision corresponds to the will of the historical legislator (BBl 1997 I 169).

---

#4. Legal Consequences

N. 14 Interferences with Art. 24 FC must cumulatively satisfy the conditions of Art. 36 FC. The Federal Supreme Court applies a differentiated proportionality review to domicile requirements imposed on civil servants and officeholders: the determining factors are the operational necessity (e.g. on-call readiness, availability) and the officeholder's connection with the local population; purely fiscal motives for a domicile requirement are excluded from the outset as a legitimate public interest (BGE 128 I 280 E. 4.2, referring to BGE 118 Ia 410).

N. 15 The core essence of Art. 24 FC is inviolable (Art. 36 para. 4 FC). A complete prohibition on Swiss nationals taking up domicile in a particular canton or commune would violate the core essence. Equally contrary to the core essence would be any state measure that permanently prevents a person from departing or permanently denies them entry into Switzerland (Müller/Schefer, Grundrechte in der Schweiz, 4th ed. 2008, pp. 729 f.).

N. 16 The freedom of domicile must be taken into account in the application of provisions of private law where state authorities are involved. In BGE 142 III 481 E. 2.5, the Federal Supreme Court held that the legislature had expressly intended, in revising Art. 301a CC, to respect the freedom of domicile and movement of parents, and that the original version of the Federal Council's draft — which would have extended the consent requirement to a change of the parent's own domicile — had given rise to constitutional concerns under Art. 24 FC. The parliamentary debate (AB 2013 S 12 ff.) led to the restriction of the consent requirement to changes in the place of residence of the child.

---

#5. Contested Issues

5.1 Scope of Protection against Domicile Requirements

N. 17 It is disputed to what extent Art. 24 FC protects freedom of choice of domicile against employer requirements. Müller/Schefer (Grundrechte in der Schweiz, 4th ed. 2008, p. 729) emphasise that domicile requirements for civil servants are constitutionally compliant only where there is a substantive connection with the performance of official duties and purely organisational or fiscal motives are excluded. The Federal Supreme Court follows this line but attributes to officeholders in sovereign functions with a high degree of independence from instructions a specific duty of connection: the conferral of such state authority lies «in principle within the regulatory competence of the cantons» and a domicile requirement is legitimate in the light of the federal democratic principle (BGE 128 I 280 E. 4.3). Hangartner/Kley (Die demokratischen Rechte in Bund und Kantonen, 2000, Rz. 1576) support this position with the argument that holders of state authority require democratic legitimacy within the respective public authority.

N. 18 Rhinow/Schefer/Uebersax (Schweizerisches Verfassungsrecht, 3rd ed. 2016, N 1590) point out that the Federal Supreme Court has signalled in later decisions an increasing restraint regarding cantonal domicile requirements in cases where no genuinely sovereign activity is at issue. This openness corresponds to the societal development of increased occupational mobility, without however affecting the core of domicile requirements for genuine sovereign functions. Whether domicile requirements can be maintained for certain categories — e.g. school principals — is, according to the Federal Supreme Court, a question of proportionality in the individual case.

5.2 Scope of Protection for Travelling Communities

N. 19 The question of whether Art. 24 para. 1 FC also protects a nomadic way of life — i.e. not a fixed domicile but rather the freedom to choose not to have a fixed place of domicile — has not yet been conclusively resolved in the case law. In BGE 145 I 73 E. 7.1.1, the Federal Supreme Court held that Art. 24 para. 1 FC guarantees travelling communities the freedom to take up domicile «at a place in the country», without this giving rise to a claim against public authorities for the provision of stopping places. The eviction of an unlawful encampment does not violate Art. 24 FC provided proportionality is observed. Sambuc Bloise (La situation juridique des Tziganes en Suisse, 2007, p. 384) and the ECtHR case law (Chapman v. United Kingdom, §§ 73–74) argue, however, that state planning and administrative measures must give due consideration to the specific living situation of travelling communities, which opens up a tension between the negative defensive right and possible positive protective duties arising from Art. 8 ECHR.

5.3 Relationship between Parents' Freedom of Domicile and the Child's Best Interests

N. 20 Where a parent with parental responsibility moves abroad, a conflict arises between Art. 24 FC and the best interests of the child (Art. 11 FC). The Federal Supreme Court clarified in BGE 142 III 481 E. 2.5 that the legislature chose freedom of domicile as the point of departure: the motives of the relocating parent are not subject to judicial review; the intention to relocate is to be accepted as a given, and the child's interests are to be adapted accordingly (Art. 301a para. 5 CC). Büchler/Maranta (Das neue Recht der elterlichen Sorge, Jusletter 11 August 2014, Rz. 84 f.) and Fassbind (AJP 2014, p. 697) welcome this fundamental-rights-friendly interpretation. A minority view — Coester-Waltjen (iFamZ 2012, p. 313) — criticises the outcome as placing parental autonomy above the best interests of the child, thereby undermining the values of Art. 11 FC. The Federal Supreme Court responds to this criticism with the argument that structurally analogous liberty rights (freedom to divorce, freedom to marry) are likewise not restricted merely because there are joint children.

---

#6. Practical Notes

N. 21 Domicile requirements for public employees and officeholders: A domicile requirement is constitutionally compliant if (i) a legal basis exists, (ii) a substantive public interest is demonstrable (operational necessity or connection with the local population), and (iii) the measure is proportionate. Purely fiscal motives are insufficient (BGE 128 I 280 E. 4.2). In individual cases, a domicile requirement that is in principle justified may nonetheless be disproportionate where personal circumstances require a departure from the rule (BGE 128 I 280 E. 4.5). The guiding principle is the democratic idea that state authority is exercised by those subject to it — in particular in the case of sovereign officeholders who are independent of instructions.

N. 22 Political rights and domicile requirements: A domicile requirement for elected officeholders, as a condition of eligibility for election, engages the protection of political rights and may therefore be challenged by means of a voting rights complaint (BGE 128 I 34 E. 1d). Without an express legal basis, an authority may not create exceptions to a clearly formulated domicile requirement; the path of legislative amendment must be followed (BGE 128 I 34 E. 3d).

N. 23 Restriction of freedom of domicile through child protection law: When approving a change of domicile for a person under guardianship (Art. 377 para. 1 CC), the competent authority must observe the principle of proportionality. The change must be approved where it corresponds to the well-understood interests of the person under a deputyship; fiscal interests of the transferring authority do not constitute a legitimate ground for refusal (BGE 131 I 266 E. 3 and 4.1).

N. 24 Freedom of departure and entry in practice: Art. 24 para. 2 FC prevents state measures that effectively hinder a Swiss national from leaving Switzerland. The refusal of administrative services (e.g. a deregistration certificate) on account of civil-law obligations such as tax debts is arbitrary and violates the fundamental right (cf. Caselaw layer, BGE 127 I 97). Passport restrictions are permissible only in accordance with Art. 36 FC; a specific legal basis is mandatorily required.

N. 25 International law references: Art. 24 FC is to be interpreted in the light of Art. 2 Protocol No. 4 ECHR. Unlike the ECHR, the FC restricts the freedom of movement guarantee to Swiss nationals; for EU/EFTA nationals, the AFMP (SR 0.142.112.681) applies and establishes independent rights of free movement. The Federal Supreme Court has clarified that the sovereign activity of public notaries is excluded from the AFMP (Art. 10 and 16 Annex I AFMP; BGE 128 I 280 E. 3). → Art. 190 FC (applicable law) is to be taken into account in any conflicts between Art. 24 FC and the AFMP.

Case Law

#Principles of Freedom of Establishment

#Content and Scope

BGE 148 I 97 of 21.1.2021 Art. 24 FC guarantees the right to freely choose one's place of residence in Switzerland. Defines the content and scope of freedom of establishment and delineates cantonal competences.

«Die Niederlassungsfreiheit garantiert ad ogni persona di cittadinanza svizzera la possibilità di eleggere qualsiasi luogo della Svizzera come luogo di residenza e di ricevere i corrispondenti annunci. D'altro canto, impone ai Cantoni e ai Comuni di permettere ad ogni cittadino svizzero di stabilirsi sul loro territorio, di iscriverlo negli appositi registri.»

BGE 128 I 280 of 1.1.2002 Freedom of establishment protects the possibility of personal residence at any location in Switzerland. Fundamental decision on the scope of this fundamental right in sovereign activities.

«Die Niederlassungsfreiheit gewährleistet damit die Möglichkeit persönlichen Verweilens an jedem beliebigen Ort der Schweiz; sie gebietet den Kantonen und Gemeinden, jedem Schweizerbürger die Niederlassung auf ihrem Gebiet zu erlauben, und verbietet ihnen gleichzeitig, die Verlegung des Wohnsitzes vom einen zum andern Ort zu erschweren.»

#Residence Requirements and Professional Restrictions

#Sovereign Activities

BGE 128 I 280 of 1.1.2002 Residence requirement for notaries is compatible with Art. 24 FC. Clarifies the permissible restrictions on freedom of establishment for sovereign tasks.

«Die Regelung des Kantons Appenzell I.Rh., wonach die hoheitliche Beurkundungsbefugnis Personen mit Wohnsitz im Kanton vorbehalten wird, ist mit der Bundesverfassung und namentlich mit der Niederlassungsfreiheit vereinbar.»

BGE 128 I 34 of 1.1.2001 Residence requirement for government representatives concerns passive voting rights. Shows the connection between freedom of establishment and political rights.

«Die Wohnsitzpflicht zählt wie die klassischen Unvereinbarkeitsbestimmungen zum von Art. 85 lit. a OG erfassten Schutzbereich der politischen Rechte.»

#Professional Mobility and Registration Requirements

BGE 148 I 97 of 21.1.2021
Registration requirement for professional residence is permissible but may not be subject to authorization. Current case law on second residences for professional reasons.

«Die Meldepflicht bei beruflich bedingtem Aufenthalt in einer anderen Gemeinde als der Wohnsitzgemeinde schränkt die Ausübung der Niederlassungsfreiheit nicht ein. Die Meldung darf jedoch nicht einer Genehmigungsregelung unterliegen.»

#Freedom of Movement (Art. 24 para. 2 FC)

#Freedom of Emigration

BGE 127 I 97 of 1.1.2001 Denial of de-registration confirmation due to tax debts violates the prohibition of arbitrariness. Important decision on the practical exercise of freedom of emigration.

«Es verstösst gegen das Willkürverbot, einer Person die polizeiliche Abmeldung nicht zu bestätigen, weil sie offene Steuerschulden hat.»

#Family Law and Child Welfare

BGE 142 III 481 of 11.3.2016 Child's move abroad requires balancing between parents' freedom of movement and child welfare. Leading decision on the tension between parental mobility and children's interests.

«Das neue Recht statuiert als allgemeinen Grundsatz die gemeinsame elterliche Sorge [...] Mit dem neuen Recht wird auch die Niederlassungs- bzw. Bewegungsfreiheit der Eltern respektiert.»

BGE 131 I 266 of 27.4.2005 Change of residence of persons under guardianship is subject to the principle of proportionality. Shows the limits of state restrictions on freedom of establishment.

«Die auf Art. 377 Abs. 1 ZGB abgestützte Beschränkung der Niederlassungsfreiheit muss verhältnismässig sein.»

#Travelling Communities

#Protection of Nomadic Lifestyle

BGE 145 I 73 of 13.2.2019 Eviction of illegal camps does not violate Art. 24 FC. Important decision on the protection of travelling communities and the limits of their freedom of establishment.

«Die Räumung eines rechtswidrigen Lagers - vorgesehen in den Art. 24 bis 28 LSCN - verletzt weder den Schutz der Privatsphäre (Art. 13 BV) noch die Niederlassungsfreiheit (Art. 24 BV) noch die Allgemeinen Verfahrensgarantien (Art. 29 BV).»

#Intercantonal and International Relations

#Federalism and Conflicts of Jurisdiction

BGE 131 I 266 of 27.4.2005 Federal Supreme Court decides conflicts of jurisdiction between cantonal guardianship authorities. Shows the significance of freedom of establishment for the federal balance.

«Tragweite von Art 83 lit. e OG bei Streitigkeiten zwischen den kantonalen Vormundschaftsbehörden über den Wechsel des Wohnsitzes bevormundeter Personen.»

#European Law and Free Movement of Persons

BGE 135 II 1 of 12.11.2008 Declaration of nullity of a naturalization leads to aliens law reversion. Shows the distinction between Swiss freedom of establishment and European free movement of persons.

«Mit der Nichtigerklärung der Einbürgerung wird die davon betroffene Person ausländerrechtlich, unter Vorbehalt allfälliger Untergangsgründe, in die gleiche Rechtsstellung wie vor der Einbürgerung versetzt.»

BGE 135 I 153 of 27.3.2009
Family reunification and reverse family reunification for Swiss children. Connection between Art. 24 FC and aliens law provisions.

«Erscheint die Ausreise von anwesenheitsberechtigten Familienangehörigen einer ausländischen Person, welche die Schweiz verlassen muss, nicht ohne Weiteres zumutbar, ist eine Interessenabwägung nach Art. 8 Ziff. 2 EMRK vorzunehmen.»

#Current Developments

#Registration System and Digitalization

VB.2022.00722 of 22.8.2024 (Administrative Court ZH) Police registration requirement for Swiss citizens living abroad with regular residence. Latest cantonal case law on the practical implementation of registration requirements.

Das Registerharmonisierungsgesetz umschreibt Begriffe wie Niederlassungsgemeinde und Aufenthaltsgemeinde auf bundesrechtlicher Ebene.

#Family Reunification in Complex Cases

2C 273/2023 of 30.5.2024 Entry for residence and granting of a residence permit. Latest Federal Supreme Court decision on the distinction between Swiss and aliens law residence rights.