1The Cantons may enter into agreements with each other and establish common organisations and institutions. In particular, they may jointly undertake tasks of regional importance together.
2The Confederation may participate in such organisations or institutions within the scope of its powers.
3Agreements between Cantons must not be contrary to the law, to the interests of the Confederation or to the rights of other Cantons. The Confederation must be notified of such agreements.
4The Cantons may by intercantonal agreement authorise intercantonal bodies to issue legislative provisions that implement an intercantonal agreement, provided the agreement:
has been approved under the same procedure that applies to other legislation;
determines the basic content of the provisions.
5The Cantons shall comply with intercantonal law.
1At the request of interested Cantons, the Confederation may declare intercantonal agreements to be generally binding or require Cantons to participate in intercantonal agreements in the following fields:
the execution of criminal penalties and measures;
school education in the matters specified in Article 62 paragraph 4;
cantonal institutions of higher education;
cultural institutions of supra-regional importance;
waste management;
waste water treatment;
urban transport;
advanced medical science and specialist clinics;
institutions for the rehabilitation and care of invalids.
2A declaration of general application is made in the form of a federal decree.
3The law shall specify the requirements for a declaration of general application and for a participation requirement and regulate the procedure.
Art. 48 — Agreements between cantons
#Overview
Art. 48 FC enables cooperation between cantons through agreements. This provision is the constitutional foundation for intercantonal cooperation in Switzerland.
The cantons may conclude agreements with each other and create joint organisations. This allows them to fulfil tasks of regional importance together. A concrete example is the Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education (EDK), which coordinates education policy based on the School Concordat of 1970 (BGE 148 I 104). Another example is the Intercantonal Agreement on Highly Specialised Medicine (IVHSM), which regulates the treatment of rare and costly diseases.
The Confederation may participate in these agreements if it has competence to do so. This occurs, for example, in the joint organisation of public transport.
Intercantonal agreements have important limits: they may not violate federal law, federal interests or the rights of other cantons. The agreements must be reported to the Confederation. In the case of the Intercantonal Agreement on Lotteries and Betting (IVLW), the Federal Supreme Court confirmed these principles (BGE 135 II 338).
Democratic control is particularly important: if intercantonal bodies are to enact laws, the agreement must be treated by parliament like a law. This is evident with the EDK, where education reforms are only possible with parliamentary approval.
The cantons must observe intercantonal law, just as they must comply with federal law (BGE 143 V 451). Violations may be challenged by appeal to the Federal Supreme Court.
Art. 48 FC strengthens cooperative federalism (partnership-based cooperation in the federal state). It enables efficient solutions for regional challenges without abandoning cantonal autonomy. Case law shows that cooperation functions when constitutional requirements are observed.
Art. 48 FC — Intercantonal Treaties
#Doctrine
#1. Legislative History
N. 1 Art. 48 FC 1999 builds upon Art. 7 of the former Federal Constitution (oFC), its predecessor in federal constitutional law of 1874, which already recognised intercantonal freedom of contract. The total revision of the Federal Constitution incorporated this provision and modernised it. In its dispatch, the Federal Council stated that Art. 48 FC was intended to «authorise the cantons to conclude treaties with one another and to establish joint institutions», while at the same time «defining the limits of this competence» (BBl 1997 I 596). The three-paragraph basic structure — right to conclude treaties, federal participation, limitations — corresponds conceptually to the former Art. 7 oFC (BBl 1997 I 596).
N. 2 The Federal Council deliberately refrained from introducing a requirement of federal approval for intercantonal treaties, as had still been envisaged in Art. 34 para. 3 of the 1995 preliminary draft, and replaced it with a mere duty to give notice combined with a right of objection by the Federal Council (BBl 1997 I 214). This change of system — from approval to notification — strengthened cantonal autonomy and reflects the federalist principles underlying the total revision. The Federal Supreme Court explicitly confirmed that concordats under the new law do not require federal approval: «Unlike under the former Federal Constitution, concordats are not subject to federal approval but, pursuant to Art. 48 para. 3 sentence 2 FC, merely to the duty to notify the federal authorities» (BGE 137 I 31 E. 1.3).
N. 3 The parliamentary debates on Art. 48 proceeded without major controversy: rapporteur Aeby (S, FR) noted in the Council of States that Arts. 45–48 had been adopted without discussion (AB 1998 SR Separatdruck). The text adopted by the National Council and the Council of States was approved in the final votes of both chambers on 18 December 1998. Paras. 4 and 5 (intercantonal legislative delegation and duty of compliance) were introduced in 2004 in the context of the reorganisation of fiscal equalisation and the reallocation of tasks (NFA) and have been in force since 1 January 2008.
#2. Systematic Classification
N. 4 Art. 48 FC forms part of the Third Chapter of the Federal Constitution («Confederation and Cantons»), which governs federal relations. The provision is a competence norm in favour of the cantons: it authorises them to perform specific legal acts (conclusion of treaties, establishment of joint institutions) and at the same time delimits that authorisation (para. 3). It is not a fundamental rights provision and does not give rise to individually enforceable claims.
N. 5 Art. 48 FC is closely connected to a number of other provisions of the federal framework: ↔ Art. 3 FC establishes cantonal sovereignty as the foundation of all intercantonal cooperation; ↔ Art. 44 FC lays down the general duty of the Confederation and the cantons to support and have regard for one another; → Art. 48a FC supplements Art. 48 for the case in which the Confederation may oblige cantons to cooperate intercantonally or may declare a treaty generally binding; ↔ Art. 49 para. 1 FC establishes the supremacy of federal law, which is directly applicable to intercantonal agreements. In addition, Art. 48 para. 4 FC is linked to → Art. 191b para. 2 FC, which expressly provides for the possibility of joint judicial authorities.
N. 6 Tschannen characterises intercantonal treaty law as a form of «horizontal federalism» which does not affect the vertical allocation of competences between the Confederation and the cantons but permits coordinated solutions at cantonal level (Tschannen, Staatsrecht der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, 4th ed. 2016, § 25 N 1). Häfelin/Haller/Keller/Thurnherr place Art. 48 FC in the context of cooperative federalism and emphasise that the provision reflects the growing importance of cross-cantonal performance of tasks (Häfelin/Haller/Keller/Thurnherr, Schweizerisches Bundesstaatsrecht, 10th ed. 2020, N 1269).
#3. Elements of the Provision / Normative Content
3.1 Paragraph 1: Right to Conclude Treaties and Establish Joint Institutions
N. 7 Para. 1 sentence 1 confers two powers on the cantons: first, the conclusion of intercantonal treaties (concordats); second, the establishment of joint organisations and institutions. These may be independent legal entities (intercantonal corporations, public-law institutions) or mere coordination bodies. Para. 1 sentence 2 specifies by way of illustration («in particular») that cantons may jointly perform tasks of regional interest. This reference is not exhaustive; as a matter of principle, cantons may conclude treaties on any matter within their sphere of competence (BBl 1997 I 214; Schweizer/Abderhalden, in: Ehrenzeller et al. [eds.], St. Galler Kommentar BV, 3rd ed. 2014, N. 16 on Art. 48 FC).
N. 8 Intercantonal treaties are treaties under public international law in the broader sense, but are embedded within domestic law: they are not international treaties within the meaning of Arts. 54 ff. FC, are subject to public law, and follow the normative hierarchy of the Swiss federal state. According to the Federal Supreme Court, intercantonal law has the rank of cantonal law within the meaning of Art. 49 para. 1 FC (BGE 143 V 451 E. 9.3): «The law referred to constitutes (inter-)cantonal law within the meaning of Art. 48 para. 3 and Art. 49 para. 1 FC.» Equally, federal law to which an intercantonal treaty refers by way of incorporation shall be treated as intercantonal law in the concordat relationship (BGE 143 V 451 E. 9.3).
N. 9 Intercantonal agreements may — as case law in numerous subject areas has demonstrated — transfer licensing competences to joint bodies: in the area of gambling to the Comlot (BGE 135 II 338 E. 4), in the area of education to the EDK (BGE 148 I 104 E. 5.1), and in the area of health to the organs of the HSM agreement. Such a transfer requires that the delegated competence falls within the sphere of cantonal authority; intercantonal agreements may not alter the distribution of competences between the Confederation and the cantons (BGE 143 V 451 E. 9.3; Waldmann/Schnyder von Wartensee, BSK BV, 2nd ed. 2024, N. 41 on Art. 48 FC).
3.2 Paragraph 2: Federal Participation
N. 10 Para. 2 enables the Confederation to participate in intercantonal projects «within the scope of its competences». Such participation requires a cantonal initiative; the Confederation cannot impose itself. The phrase «within the scope of its competences» ensures that federal participation does not constitute an independent expansion of federal competence. Para. 2 is of particular practical relevance in subject areas in which the Confederation and the cantons share competences (e.g. education, health, infrastructure). Biaggini emphasises that this provision is an expression of cooperative federalism and must be carefully distinguished from federal interference (Biaggini, Bundesverfassung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, 2007, N. 12 ff. on Art. 48 FC).
3.3 Paragraph 3: Limitations and Duty of Notification
N. 11 Para. 3 sentence 1 contains two cumulative substantive limitations on intercantonal treaties: they may not be contrary to federal law and the interests of the Confederation, nor to the rights of other cantons. «Law» encompasses the entirety of federal law including the Federal Constitution; «interests» of the Confederation refer additionally to the overall political and administrative interests of the Swiss Confederation (Häfelin/Haller/Keller/Thurnherr, Schweizerisches Bundesstaatsrecht, 10th ed. 2020, N 1279). «Rights of other cantons» concerns constitutional positions at cantonal level and the competences guaranteed to individual cantons by the Federal Constitution.
N. 12 The relationship to Art. 49 para. 1 FC is clear: intercantonal law takes precedence over cantonal law, but not over federal law. In BGE 143 V 451 E. 9.4 the Federal Supreme Court held that an intercantonal agreement which, in its application, leads to the «prevention or at least excessive obstruction of federal law» violates Art. 48 para. 3 FC and Art. 49 para. 1 FC. An intercantonal agreement cannot alter the distribution of competences between the Confederation and the cantons (BGE 143 V 451 E. 9.3).
N. 13 Para. 3 sentence 2 establishes the duty of notification: intercantonal treaties must be brought to the attention of the Confederation. This duty is procedural in nature; its breach does not render the treaty invalid ipso iure, but may form the basis for the Federal Council's right of objection. Art. 14 of the Sports Concordat expressly provided for corresponding notification — the Federal Supreme Court qualified the requirement as «of no significance for challenging the concordat» (BGE 137 I 31 E. 1.3).
3.4 Paragraph 4: Intercantonal Legislative Delegation
N. 14 Para. 4, in force since 2008, allows cantons to authorise intercantonal organs, by intercantonal treaty, to enact legislative provisions. This authorisation is subject to two cumulative conditions: (a) the treaty must have been approved in accordance with the procedure applicable to legislation (parliamentary approval in the concordat cantons); and (b) the treaty must set out the essential principles of the provisions to be enacted (substantive limitation on delegation). Both conditions serve the requirements of democratic legitimacy and legal certainty.
N. 15 The Federal Supreme Court in BGE 148 I 104 E. 5.3.2 clarified the limits of para. 4: the principles governing the jurisdiction, status, organisation and election of the judicial authority must be enshrined in an intercantonal agreement that has at least received parliamentary approval. A regulation enacted solely by an intercantonal organ making reference to cantonal law does not satisfy the requirements of para. 4. In BGE 148 I 104 E. 5.4.2 it was explicitly held that the essential principles relating to legal protection must be laid down in the intercantonal treaty itself, and not merely through delegated executive law.
3.5 Paragraph 5: Duty of Compliance
N. 16 Para. 5, likewise in force since 2008, obliges the cantons to «respect intercantonal law». This duty applies to all cantons that have acceded to a concordat, not only to those that originally concluded it. It establishes the precedence of concordat law over subsequently enacted cantonal legislation and thus constitutes the intercantonal counterpart to the supremacy of federal law under Art. 49 para. 1 FC. Schweizer/Abderhalden emphasise that para. 5 codifies a duty of loyal application of intercantonal law that had previously applied only implicitly (Schweizer/Abderhalden, St. Galler Kommentar BV, 3rd ed. 2014, N. 44 ff. on Art. 48 FC).
#4. Legal Consequences
N. 17 An intercantonal treaty that contravenes the limitations set out in para. 3 is unconstitutional. The legal consequence is the non-application of the conflicting concordat provision in the individual case (BGE 143 V 451 E. 9.4) or — in the context of abstract norm review — the annulment of the relevant provision. The Federal Supreme Court annuls a concordat provision only «where it is not amenable to any interpretation consistent with the Constitution and the Convention» (BGE 137 I 31 E. 2).
N. 18 Where an intercantonal organisation lacks constitutionally compliant legal protection (para. 4 not satisfied), this violates the guarantee of access to the courts under Art. 29a FC. In such cases, the Federal Supreme Court has established a judicial interim arrangement: it designated the administrative court of the canton of domicile of the organisation as the provisionally competent instance until the concordat cantons have brought the legal situation into conformity with the Constitution (BGE 148 I 104 E. 6.2; Rütsche, BVR 2021 p. 354). This transitional arrangement has no precedential effect.
N. 19 Concordat provisions may be challenged before the Federal Supreme Court as cantonal enactments within the meaning of Art. 82 lit. b FSCA by way of public law appeal (BGE 137 I 31 E. 1.3). Intercantonal judicial authorities qualify as final superior courts within the meaning of Art. 86 para. 1 lit. d and para. 2 FSCA, provided they satisfy the formal requirements of para. 4 (BGE 135 II 338 E. 1.1; BGE 148 I 104 E. 5.3.1). Federal authorities entitled to appeal to the Federal Supreme Court may also participate in cantonal and intercantonal proceedings pursuant to Art. 111 para. 2 FSCA (BGE 135 II 338 E. 2.1).
#5. Disputed Questions
5.1 Rank of Intercantonal Law
N. 20 It is widely accepted that intercantonal law ranks between cantonal law (which it derogates) and federal law (to which it must yield). Schweizer/Abderhalden and Häfelin/Haller/Keller/Thurnherr agree that law created by intercantonal agreements has the rank of cantonal law within the meaning of Art. 49 para. 1 FC (Schweizer/Abderhalden, St. Galler Kommentar BV, 3rd ed. 2014, N. 60 on Art. 48 FC; Häfelin/Haller/Keller/Thurnherr, Schweizerisches Bundesstaatsrecht, 10th ed. 2020, N 1272). This position has been adopted by the Federal Supreme Court (BGE 143 V 451 E. 9.3). Waldmann/Schnyder von Wartensee likewise affirm the subordination to federal law and the precedence over subsequently enacted cantonal law (Waldmann/Schnyder von Wartensee, BSK BV, N. 66 on Art. 48 FC).
5.2 Democratic Legitimacy of Intercantonal Legislation
N. 21 It is disputed whether the delegation of legislative competences to intercantonal organs is sufficiently compatible with democratic requirements. Abderhalden has pointed out that the requirements of para. 4 (parliamentary approval procedure, establishment of essential principles) do not fully compensate for the democratic deficit, since the parliaments are essentially left with a «take it or leave it» choice (Abderhalden, Verfassungsrechtliche Überlegungen zur interkantonalen Rechtsetzung, LeGes 2006/1, p. 11). Uhlmann/Zehnder, by contrast, argue that para. 4 creates a sufficient degree of democratic inclusion, provided the essential principles are substantively anchored in the treaty itself (Uhlmann/Zehnder, Rechtsetzung durch Konkordate, LeGes 2011/1, p. 23). The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the position of Uhlmann/Zehnder in principle in BGE 148 I 104 E. 5.4.2, while at the same time clarifying that «the essential principles of the provisions must be laid down in the intercantonal treaty itself».
5.3 Enforceability of Federal Interests (Para. 3)
N. 22 It remains unclear under what conditions «interests of the Confederation» within the meaning of para. 3 may invalidate an intercantonal agreement. Academic commentary is cautious on this point: Häfelin/Haller/Keller/Thurnherr require a tangible impairment of specific federal objectives (Häfelin/Haller/Keller/Thurnherr, Schweizerisches Bundesstaatsrecht, 10th ed. 2020, N 1279); Tschannen warns against an expansive interpretation that would hollow out intercantonal freedom of contract (Tschannen, Staatsrecht, 4th ed. 2016, § 25 N 19). Case law has thus far applied the concept of «interests of the Confederation» with restraint and has relied predominantly on the «law» limitation (cf. BGE 143 V 451 E. 9.4; BGE 137 I 31 E. 4.1).
5.4 Legal Protection Against Acts of Intercantonal Organs
N. 23 Whether and how individuals may challenge decisions of intercantonal organs is a legally delicate question. Mächler has emphasised that the principles governing the jurisdiction and organisation of judicial authorities must be enshrined in an agreement approved by the cantonal parliaments (Mächler, Individualrechtsschutz bei interkantonaler Aufgabenerfüllung, in: Individuum und Verband, Festgabe Juristentag 2006, p. 468). Rütsche takes the view that — where a constitutionally compliant judicial body is lacking — the administrative court of the canton of domicile of the organisation is competent as a substitute (Rütsche, BVR 2021 p. 354). The Federal Supreme Court adopted both positions in BGE 148 I 104 E. 5.3.2 and E. 6.2, thereby developing an increasingly well-defined body of case law on the minimum requirements for intercantonal legal protection. → Art. 29a FC; → Art. 191b FC.
#6. Practical Notes
N. 24 Conclusion of concordats: Intercantonal agreements come into existence through the concordant declarations of intent of the acceding cantons. The accession procedure is governed by cantonal law (as a rule, approval by the cantonal parliament). The treaty must be brought to the attention of the Confederation (para. 3 sentence 2). No treaty requires formal approval by the Confederation (→ N. 2).
N. 25 Legislative delegation under para. 4: In drafting intercantonal agreements, careful attention must be paid to ensuring that (a) the treaty itself — and not merely a delegated executive regulation — sets out the essential principles of the legislative provisions, and (b) the treaty has been approved by the cantonal parliaments. Where either of these requirements is not met, the legislative provisions enacted by the intercantonal organ on that basis are unconstitutional (BGE 148 I 104 E. 5.4.2).
N. 26 Legal protection: Intercantonal agreements must guarantee a legal remedy satisfying Art. 29a FC. Joint judicial authorities within the meaning of Art. 191b para. 2 FC are permissible, but require a sufficient basis in the parliamentarily approved concordat (BGE 148 I 104 E. 5.3.1). Where such a basis is lacking, the administrative court of the canton of domicile of the organisation is provisionally competent (BGE 148 I 104 E. 6.2). Concordat organs that satisfy the requirements of para. 4 qualify as final superior courts within the meaning of Art. 86 para. 2 FSCA (BGE 135 II 338 E. 1.1).
N. 27 Relationship to federal law: Intercantonal agreements that declare federal law applicable by way of reference transform it into intercantonal law. Where the law so transformed conflicts with federal law in concrete application, federal law prevails (BGE 143 V 451 E. 9.4). This conflict-of-laws rule must be given particular attention when drafting reference provisions in concordats.
N. 28 Challenging concordat provisions: Legislative concordat provisions may be challenged before the Federal Supreme Court as cantonal enactments within the meaning of Art. 82 lit. b FSCA by way of public law appeal. The standard of review is compatibility with higher-ranking law, in particular with the fundamental rights under federal law and the supremacy of federal law (Art. 49 para. 1 FC). In the context of abstract norm review, the Federal Supreme Court annuls a concordat provision only where it is not amenable to any constitutionally consistent interpretation (BGE 137 I 31 E. 2).
Case Law
#Principles of Intercantonal Cooperation
#Constitutional Foundations
BGE 148 I 104 of 26 April 2022
Guarantee of legal remedy in intercantonal organs
The Federal Supreme Court clarifies the constitutional requirements for legal protection in intercantonal organisations according to Art. 48 FC.
«The guarantee of legal remedy requires judicial assessment of legal disputes also in intercantonal cooperation. It is the responsibility of the concordat cantons to design legal protection against decisions of the EDK or its agencies in accordance with the Constitution (cf. Art. 48 para. 4 FC) and to establish a court that meets the requirements of Art. 30 para. 1 FC.»
BGE 135 II 338 of 10 August 2009
Federal law conformity of intercantonal agreements
Landmark decision on the federal law conformity of the Intercantonal Agreement on Lotteries and Betting (IVLW).
«Federal lottery law does not exclude an intercantonal procedure that transfers the licensing decision to a joint organ and, for standardised products, combines a general licensing decision with the possibility of obtaining an appealable decision for each individual product.»
#Legislative Powers of Intercantonal Organs
#Requirements under Art. 48 para. 4 FC
BGE 141 II 262 of 9 July 2015
Powers of the Intercantonal Lottery and Betting Commission
The Federal Supreme Court confirms the power of intercantonal organs to legislate under the conditions of Art. 48 para. 4 FC.
«Comlot as the licensing authority is authorised, based on a teleological-temporal interpretation of federal and intercantonal law (IVLW), to conduct a subordination or qualification procedure in connection with major lotteries and to specify the generally-abstractly valid lottery prohibition in individual cases.»
BGE 137 I 31 of 13 October 2010
Concordat on measures against violence at sporting events
Constitutional review of a concordat with measures similar to fundamental rights restrictions.
«The concordat in dispute here represents specific police law. It is directed at the particular phenomenon of violence in the context of sporting events. The concordat aims to prevent such violence with the special measures of area bans, reporting obligations and police custody.»
#Relationship to Federal Law
#Art. 48 para. 3 FC - Limits of intercantonal cooperation
BGE 143 V 451 of 21 November 2017
Intercantonal law within the meaning of Art. 48 para. 3 and Art. 49 para. 1 FC
Significance of references to federal law in intercantonal agreements.
«When the application of federal law is provided for in an intercantonal agreement, the referenced law constitutes (inter-)cantonal law within the meaning of Art. 48 para. 3 and Art. 49 para. 1 FC.»
#Specific Areas of Application
#Education Concordats
BGE 148 I 104 of 26 April 2022
School concordat and EDK
Detailed examination of the constitutional foundations of intercantonal cooperation in education.
«The cooperation of the cantons in education and the EDK are based on the Concordat of 29 October 1970 on School Coordination. This is an intercantonal agreement within the meaning of Art. 48 para. 1 FC.»
#Gambling Sector
BGE 135 II 338 of 10 August 2009
Intercantonal Agreement on Lotteries and Betting
Fundamental decision on the compatibility of intercantonal gambling regulation with federal law.
«The challenged decision of the Appeals Commission was issued within the scope of application of the Federal Act of 8 June 1923 concerning lotteries and commercial betting (LG; SR 935.51). The Appeals Commission forms part of the organisational structure of the 'Intercantonal Agreement of 7 January 2005 on the supervision as well as the licensing and revenue use of lotteries and betting conducted intercantonally or throughout Switzerland'.»
#Social Assistance and Child Protection
BGE 143 V 451 of 21 November 2017
Intercantonal Agreement for Social Institutions (IVSE)
Application of the IVSE in extracantonal child placement and determination of the support domicile.
«According to Art. 1 IVSE, this aims to enable the admission of persons with special care and support needs to suitable institutions outside their canton of residence without obstacles.»
#Procedural Aspects
#Legal Protection and Hierarchy of Appeal
BGE 148 I 104 of 26 April 2022
Negative conflict of jurisdiction and guarantee of legal remedy
Landmark decision on the constitutional requirements for legal protection in intercantonal organisations.
«A negative conflict of jurisdiction, such as the one under review here, amounts to formal denial of justice (Art. 29 para. 1 FC) for the affected person seeking legal remedy. Moreover, the appellant is denied the guarantee of legal remedy according to Art. 29a FC.»
#Administrative Appeal by the Confederation
BGE 135 II 338 of 10 August 2009
Right of federal authorities to appeal against intercantonal decisions
Clarification of the appeal rights of federal authorities in the intercantonal sphere.
«The Federal Office of Justice is authorised in the gambling sector to appeal to the Federal Supreme Court on behalf of the Federal Department of Justice and Police against decisions of the Appeals Commission Intercantonal Agreement Lotteries and Betting by way of public law appeal.»
#Highly Specialised Medicine
#Intercantonal Agreement HSM
Various decisions of the Federal Administrative Court (C-1313/2019, C-1361/2019, C-1405/2019, C-2251/2015) confirm the functionality of intercantonal cooperation in the field of highly specialised medicine under the regime of Art. 48 FC. The HSM Agreement exemplifies the practical implementation of regional task allocation according to Art. 48 para. 1 FC.
#Development Trends
Recent case law shows an increasing differentiation of constitutional requirements for intercantonal cooperation. Particular importance is attached to the guarantee of legal remedy (Art. 29a FC) and the formal requirements of Art. 48 para. 4 FC. The Federal Supreme Court repeatedly emphasises that in the absence of constitutional legal protection in the intercantonal sphere, transitional solutions must be created to guarantee the right to legal remedy.