#1. Legislative History

N. 1 Art. 66 BV has its roots in Art. 27quater of the old Federal Constitution, which was inserted in 1963. The provision arose as a response to the educational policy challenges of the post-war period, particularly the so-called «Sputnik shock» (Stirnimann, Vom Sputnik-Schock zum Stipendienkonkordat, 2010). The revision of the education articles in 2006, which came into force on 21 May 2006, brought about the current version of Art. 66 BV.

N. 2 The parliamentary deliberations revealed the tension between the need for harmonisation and cantonal educational sovereignty. The Federal Council message of 22 November 2005 (BBl 2005 7273) emphasised that the regulation of the scholarship system should remain primarily a cantonal task, while the Confederation only acts subsidiarily. This federalist basic orientation continues to shape the norm today.

N. 3 The scholarship initiative of the Swiss Student Union (VSS), submitted on 20 January 2012, demanded a centralisation of competences with the Confederation. The Federal Council and Parliament rejected this with the argument that the already advanced cantonal harmonisation through the scholarship concordat was the right path. The initiative was rejected on 14 June 2015 with 72.5% no votes.

#2. Systematic Classification

N. 4 Art. 66 BV is located in Section 3 of Chapter 3 «Education, Research and Culture». The provision must be read in connection with the education framework article (Art. 61a BV) and the general allocation of powers (Art. 3 and 42 BV). It concretises the division of tasks between the Confederation and the cantons in the specific area of education grants.

N. 5 The systematic connection is evident in several dimensions: → Art. 8 BV (equality before the law) sets limits for cantonal differentiations; → Art. 11 BV (protection of children and young people) may become relevant in designing support; → Art. 19 BV (right to basic education) complements the education system in the compulsory area; ↔ Art. 63a BV (higher education) is closely related in subject matter.

N. 6 The embedding in the federalist system is reinforced by → Art. 46 BV (implementation of federal law) and → Art. 48 BV (intercantonal agreements). The scholarship concordat of 2009 is a practical example of this constitutional authorisation for horizontal coordination.

#3. Elements of the Offence / Normative Content

N. 7 Para. 1 sentence 1: Non-independent support competence. The Confederation «may» grant contributions — the may-formulation establishes a facultative federal competence. The contributions are made «to» cantonal expenditures, not directly to students. This underscores the subsidiary character of federal support.

N. 8 The term «education grants» includes scholarships (non-repayable benefits) and loans (repayable benefits). «Higher education institutions» means universities, universities of applied sciences and universities of teacher education. «Other institutions of higher education» covers higher vocational education and training.

N. 9 Para. 1 sentence 2: Harmonisation competence. The Confederation may promote «intercantonal harmonisation» and establish «principles». This competence is broader than the pure contribution competence and allows the Confederation to influence legal unification in a steering manner. The principles may include minimum standards for entitlement, assessment and procedure.

N. 10 Para. 2: Independent support competence. «In addition» signals subsidiarity, «while respecting cantonal educational sovereignty» sets clear limits. The Confederation may develop its own programmes, but not in competition with the cantons. Examples include excellence grants or specific mobility programmes.

#4. Legal Consequences

N. 11 Art. 66 BV does not establish subjective rights of students against the Confederation. The norm is a pure competence norm that opens up possibilities for action for the federal legislature without obliging it to act. This fundamentally distinguishes Art. 66 BV from justiciable fundamental rights.

N. 12 Cantonal competence remains primary. However, when enacting legislation, the cantons must observe constitutional limitations: → Art. 8 BV (no arbitrary distinctions), → Art. 9 BV (prohibition of arbitrary application of law), → Art. 29 BV (fair procedures for scholarship decisions).

N. 13 Based on Art. 66 BV, the Confederation has enacted the Education Grant Act of 6 October 2006 (SR 416.0). It regulates the conditions for federal contributions (Art. 13 f.) and contains minimal harmonisation requirements. The Higher Education Promotion and Coordination Act (HFKG) concretises the federal competence for the higher education sector.

#5. Disputes

N. 14 Scope of harmonisation competence: The prevailing doctrine (Rhinow/Schefer/Uebersax, Schweizerisches Verfassungsrecht, N. 3456) sees in Art. 66 para. 1 sentence 2 BV a limited competence to prescribe minimum standards. A minority opinion (represented by student organisations) argued for a more extensive unification competence of the Confederation — this position was rejected with the rejection of the scholarship initiative in 2015.

N. 15 Relationship of para. 1 to para. 2: The relationship between the two paragraphs is disputed. While one view in the literature sees a clear separation between indirect support (para. 1) and direct support (para. 2), other authors (Aubert, Zum Bildungswesen, in: Müller/Feller, Bernisches Verwaltungsrecht, p. 245 ff.) advocate closer integration. Practice shows that the Confederation uses its competence under para. 2 very sparingly.

N. 16 Scholarship concordat and constitutional law: The intercantonal concordat of 18 June 2009 raises questions about constitutional admissibility. Guery (Stipendienrecht: im Tauziehen zwischen Bildungs-, Sozial- und Finanzpolitik, recht 2012, 16 ff.) sees this as an exemplary implementation of cooperative federalism. Critical voices complain about incomplete harmonisation and demand more extensive federal competence.

#6. Practical Notes

N. 17 For cantonal legislation: When designing their scholarship regulations, the cantons must observe the minimum standards of the Education Grant Act. Age limits are permissible but must be objectively justifiable (BGE 2C_139/2012). The subsidiarity of state benefits in relation to parental contributions is constitutional.

N. 18 For legal practitioners: When assessing scholarship claims, cantonal law is primarily decisive. Federal requirements only form the minimum standard. In intercantonal cases (change of residence, extra-cantonal education), the scholarship concordat must be observed if both cantons are members.

N. 19 For jurisprudence: The Federal Supreme Court only reviews cantonal scholarship decisions for constitutional violations, particularly arbitrariness (→ Art. 9 BV) and equality before the law (→ Art. 8 BV). A full review of appropriateness does not take place. Cantonal educational sovereignty enjoys constitutional protection.

N. 20 Development perspectives: The digital transformation of the education system raises new questions about scholarship entitlement (online degree programmes, international offerings). The SKBF (Bildungsbericht Schweiz 2014, p. 267 ff.) recommends a review of support criteria. The next revision will likely have to address the issue of equal opportunities in the digital age.

#Distribution of competencies and cantonal educational sovereignty

Judgment 2P.132/2003 of 7 August 2003

The Federal Supreme Court fundamentally established that the regulation of the scholarship system is primarily the responsibility of the cantons (Art. 3 in conjunction with Art. 66 Cst.). The judgment concerned a recognised refugee who applied for education grants.

«The regulation of the scholarship system is primarily the responsibility of the cantons (Art. 3 in conjunction with Art. 66 Cst.). They determine the conditions, the amount of scholarships and the procedure; in doing so, they must observe the individual rights arising from the Federal Constitution.»

This case law confirms the federalist structure of the scholarship system and the primary competence of the cantons while simultaneously observing constitutional limits.

#Limits of cantonal regulatory autonomy

Judgment 2C_139/2012 of 30 May 2012

The case concerned the recovery of education grants from students over 40 years old. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the admissibility of age-dependent restrictions, insofar as these are not arbitrary.

«Cantonal residents who attend a technical college after reaching the age of 40 are not entitled to cantonal education grants.»

The judgment reveals the limits of cantonal autonomy by examining whether cantonal regulations meet constitutional requirements.

#Intercantonal harmonisation

VB.2024.00518 of 13 March 2025 (Administrative Court of Zurich)

This recent decision dealt with the refusal of scholarships after two discontinued educations and the application of the scholarship concordat.

«The intercantonal agreement on the harmonisation of education grants of 18 June 2009 provides as a minimum standard only that the cantons – subject to fulfilment of other requirements – must pay education grants for the first education eligible for grants.»

The judgment illustrates how Art. 66 para. 1 Cst. advances intercantonal harmonisation without completely eliminating cantonal autonomy.

#Constitutional limits

Decisions of cantonal courts on age limits

In various cantonal decisions, it was examined whether age limits for scholarships are constitutionally permissible. The Administrative Court of Zurich held in VB.2025.00360:

«The materials show that the legislature intended with § 17 para. 2 BiG to narrow the circle of persons entitled to claims in the sense of targeted financial resource deployment in favour of younger persons.»

This case law confirms that the cantons have considerable discretion in designing scholarship regulations, but must observe the prohibition of arbitrariness and other constitutional guarantees.

#Subsidiarity and parental contributions

Cantonal court practice on parental contributions

The cantonal courts have confirmed the subsidiarity of state education grants in numerous decisions. This is exemplified in decisions on disrupted family relationships (VB.2014.00185, Administrative Court of Zurich):

«The granting and assessment of education grants follows the principle of subsidiarity. Decisive for the calculation of the scholarship entitlement or the determination of the parental contribution to be considered is fundamentally the entire parental income.»

This practice concretises the practical implementation of the principles enshrined in Art. 66 Cst. at the cantonal level.

#Supplementary federal measures

Practice on Art. 66 para. 2 Cst.

Although Art. 66 para. 2 Cst. permits the Confederation to take supplementary measures, case law on this is sparse, as the Confederation exercises this competence with restraint. The few decisions confirm the subsidiary role of the Confederation in relation to cantonal regulations.