1In fulfilling their duties, the Confederation and Cantons shall take account of the special need of children and young people to receive encouragement and protection.
2The Confederation may supplement cantonal measures by supporting extra-curricular work with children and young people.
1The Confederation and Cantons shall encourage musical education, in particular that of children and young people.
2They shall endeavour within the scope of their powers to ensure high-quality music teaching in schools. If the Cantons are unable to harmonise the goals of music teaching in schools by means of coordination, the Confederation shall issue the required regulations.
3In consultation with the Cantons, the Confederation shall set out principles to help young people to engage in musical activities and to encourage musically gifted persons.
Art. 67 BV obliges the Confederation and the cantons to take into account the particular needs of children and young people in all their tasks. This cross-cutting task means: When the state makes laws, takes decisions or plans projects, it must always also ask how this affects persons under 18 years of age (Tschentscher, BSK BV, Art. 67 N. 3).
The provision has two parts. Paragraph 1 prescribes this duty of consideration for all state activities. Paragraph 2 additionally allows the Confederation to provide financial support for extracurricular youth work — but only supplementary to what the cantons already do.
Art. 67 BV does not establish direct entitlements for children or youth organisations (BVGE 2015/33 E. 4.1). Rather, it is a programme provision that instructs the state on how it should exercise its power. In court decisions, however, the best interests of the child must flow into the weighing of interests as an important factor (BGE 146 III 313 E. 5.5.3).
Practical example: A municipality plans a new road. It must examine whether this makes school routes unsafe or causes playgrounds to disappear. These children's interests must be taken into account in the planning, even if they do not necessarily tip the balance.
Federal support: The Confederation may promote youth organisations or innovative projects with financial assistance. This happens through the Child and Youth Promotion Act (KJFG). The prerequisite is that the project has national significance and is limited in time (Urteil B-6244/2020). Regular operating costs are not covered.
Disputed legal question: In legal doctrine, it is disputed how far the federal competence extends. Tschentscher (BSK BV, Art. 67 N. 5) sees it as a practically unlimited parallel competence, while Biaggini emphasises stronger constitutional limitations.
Art. 67 BV strengthens awareness that state decisions often have a particularly strong impact on the young generation. It makes these effects visible and forces explicit consideration of children's interests in politics.
N. 1 Art. 67 Cst. was newly created as part of the total revision of the Federal Constitution in 1999. The Federal Council's dispatch of 20 November 1996 emphasises that the Confederation should only act in a supplementary capacity to cantonal measures in extra-curricular work with children and young people: The Confederation only acts subsidiarily (BBl 1997 I 284). This provision establishes for the first time at constitutional level an explicit cross-cutting task for the special consideration of children and young people (para. 1) as well as a subsidiary federal competence for extra-curricular youth work (para. 2).
N. 2 The norm arose in the context of international developments, particularly the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989, which Switzerland ratified in 1997. It is closely related to the simultaneously created fundamental rights guarantee of Art. 11 Cst. (protection of children and young people) and the social objective of Art. 41 para. 1 lit. g Cst.
N. 3 Art. 67 Cst. is classified in Chapter 3 (Social objectives, education and culture) of Title 2 (Fundamental rights, citizenship rights and social objectives). The norm has connections to several constitutional provisions:
→ Art. 11 Cst. (substantive fundamental rights protection)
→ Art. 41 para. 1 lit. f and g Cst. (social objectives concerning children and young people)
↔ Art. 19 Cst. (entitlement to basic education)
→ Art. 62 Cst. (education as cantonal competence)
→ Art. 5a Cst. (principle of subsidiarity)
N. 4 The systematic position clarifies that Art. 67 Cst. does not constitute a fundamental rights guarantee, but rather a competence and programme provision. It creates neither subjective rights nor justiciable claims (BGE 126 II 377 E. 5.4; BVGE 2015/33 E. 3.4).
N. 5Paragraph 1 establishes a cross-cutting task: the Confederation and cantons must take account of the particular requirements of children and young people for encouragement and protection in all their activities. This obligation applies comprehensively to all state activities, from legislation through legal application to factual administrative activity (Tschentscher, BSK BV, Art. 67 N. 3).
N. 6 The term «children and young people» encompasses persons up to the age of 18, in accordance with Art. 1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The «particular requirements for encouragement and protection» arise from the developmental vulnerability and special potential of this age group.
N. 7Paragraph 2 grants the Confederation competence to support extra-curricular work with children and young people. The term «extra-curricular work» encompasses organised and open youth work, leisure activities, cultural and sporting opportunities as well as preventive and integrative measures outside the formal education system.
N. 8 The formulation «may [...] support» makes clear that this is a discretionary competence. The Confederation is not obliged, but merely empowered, to act. Support is provided primarily through financial assistance, but may also include coordination, information and quality development.
N. 9 From Art. 67 para. 1 Cst. follows an objective legal obligation of consideration for all state organs. These must include the interests of children and young people as an important factor in their decisions. In weighing interests, particular weight must be given to the welfare of the child (BGE 146 III 313 E. 5.5.3).
N. 10 Art. 67 para. 2 Cst. legitimises federal acts in the field of extra-curricular youth work, notably the Child and Youth Promotion Act (CYPA, SR 446.1). However, the provision does not create any entitlement by private parties to federal support (BVGE 2015/33 E. 4.1).
N. 11 Federal competence is limited by the principle of subsidiarity (Art. 5a Cst.): primarily the cantons and communes are responsible for youth promotion. The Confederation only acts when this is necessary to achieve the objectives or exceeds the resources of the cantons (Art. 43a para. 1 Cst.).
N. 12Scope of federal competence: There is academic dispute about how far federal competence under Art. 67 para. 2 Cst. extends. Tschentscher (BSK BV, Art. 67 N. 5) takes the view that the Confederation has a prerogative of assessment as to when and how a «supplement» is appropriate, whereby federal competence essentially becomes an unrestricted parallel competence. Aubert/Mahon (Petit commentaire, Art. 67 N. 8) and Gerber Jenni (SG-Komm. BV, Art. 67 N. 14) agree with this interpretation. Biaggini (Komm. BV, Art. 67 N. 3) takes a different view and places greater emphasis on the constitutional limits of federal competence.
N. 13Justiciability of the cross-cutting clause: There is disagreement about the extent to which Art. 67 para. 1 Cst. is justiciable. While case law treats the norm primarily as a programme provision, parts of the academic literature call for stronger judicial enforceability of the obligation of consideration, particularly in cases of serious impairment of children's interests (Wyttenbach, in: Schweizerische Kinder- und Jugendpolitik, 2001, pp. 45 ff.).
N. 14Relationship to Art. 11 Cst.: The relationship between the cross-cutting clause of Art. 67 para. 1 Cst. and the fundamental right of Art. 11 Cst. is not conclusively clarified. While Art. 11 Cst. creates subjective rights, Art. 67 Cst. remains in the realm of objective legal obligations. The delimitation is relevant for the question of standing to appeal.
N. 15 In legislation and legal application, a child and youth impact assessment must be conducted. State measures must be examined as to whether and how they affect the interests of children and young people. This applies particularly to areas such as spatial planning, transport, environmental protection and social insurance.
N. 16Federal financial assistance under the CYPA consists of discretionary subsidies without legal entitlement. Practice shows that innovative, time-limited pilot projects are given priority support (Judgment B-6244/2020). Regular operating contributions are excluded. Applicants must substantiate the national significance and innovative character of their projects.
N. 17 In child protection measures, Art. 67 para. 1 Cst. is to be used as an interpretative aid. The obligation of consideration reinforces the civil law principle of the child's welfare and can be decisive in the exercise of discretion (BGE 146 III 313).
N. 18 In immigration law, Art. 67 Cst. in conjunction with Art. 11 Cst. may justify a hardship permit in cases of long-term residence by children and young people. Rootedness in Switzerland and educational biography are to be given particular weight (BGE 126 II 377).
#Fundamental Scope and Constitutional Classification
BGE 129 I 12 of 7 November 2002
Protection of children and young people in the education sector under Art. 19 FC.
The judgment deals with school exclusion and the constitutional limits of disciplinary measures against pupils.
«Art. 19 FC establishes the right to free basic school education at public schools corresponding to the individual abilities of the child and their personality development during the compulsory school period of at least nine years. [...] The public authority must as a rule ensure continued care for excluded pupils - until the end of compulsory schooling - by suitable persons or public institutions.»
BGE 126 II 377 of 18 April 1999
Constitutional protection of children and young people under aliens law.
The Federal Supreme Court examines the extent to which Art. 11 para. 1 FC (now Art. 67 FC in conjunction with Art. 11 FC) establishes claims to residence permits.
«The new Federal Constitution addresses the protection of children and young people in various places. Art. 11 para. 1 FC anchors their right to special protection of their integrity and to the promotion of their development. [...] Art. 67 FC obliges the Confederation and the cantons to take account of the special promotion and protection needs of children and young people when fulfilling their tasks.»
#Extra-curricular Youth Work and Federal Financing
BVGE 2015/33 of 16 October 2015
Subsidiary character of federal support for extra-curricular youth work.
The Federal Administrative Court specifies the constitutional limits of federal promotion under Art. 67 para. 2 FC.
«According to Art. 67 para. 2 FC, the Confederation may support extra-curricular work with children and young people in addition to cantonal measures. According to the will of the legislature, the principle of subsidiarity must be observed: the Confederation only acts in a supplementary capacity. [...] The Confederation supports extra-curricular work with children and young people only in a supplementary capacity.»
Judgment B-6244/2020 of 5 January 2022
Delimitation of promotion areas for extra-curricular youth work.
The Federal Administrative Court deals with the substantive limits of federal financing under Art. 67 para. 2 FC.
«Art. 67 para. 2 FC authorises the Confederation to support extra-curricular work with children and young people in addition to cantonal measures. However, this provision does not establish unlimited promotion competence for the Confederation, but must be interpreted restrictively in light of the principle of subsidiarity.»
Judgment B-4003/2014 of 24 June 2015
Requirements for pilot projects in youth work.
The Federal Administrative Court specifies the requirements for innovative projects under the Child and Youth Promotion Act.
«A pilot project within the meaning of Art. 8 CYPA can only be subsidised if it is unique and has innovative content. The repetition of a previously supported project is excluded from federal financial aid.»
Judgment B-2099/2016 of 8 August 2016
Priority setting with limited federal financing resources.
The court deals with the exercise of discretion by federal authorities in the allocation of funds for extra-curricular youth work.
«Financial aid under the CYPA is to be classified as discretionary subsidies. The authority must establish relative criteria according to proper discretion that allow the number of applications that are in principle eligible for subsidies to be prioritised appropriately according to the degree of their worthiness for subsidies.»
BGE 146 III 313 of 16 June 2020
Parental authority and child welfare in medical decisions.
The Federal Supreme Court deals with the constitutional protection of children when parents disagree about vaccinations.
«If the parents with custody are at odds about whether their child should be vaccinated against measles, the competent authority must decide on the implementation of this measure to protect the child's health in place of the parents, based on Art. 307 para. 1 CC and in proper exercise of its discretion.»
BGE 144 III 442 of 10 July 2018
Child protection measures and procedural guarantees.
The Federal Supreme Court deals with the compatibility of child protection measures with the fundamental rights of those involved.
«Criteria for the withdrawal of the right to determine residence when this can prevent endangerment of the child's welfare. The court must thereby balance the interests between the rights of the parents and the child's welfare.»
BGE 146 IV 267 of 17 August 2020
Child welfare in the execution of sentences.
The Federal Supreme Court deals with the consideration of Art. 11 FC in the execution of custodial sentences.
«Art. 11 FC anchors the right of children and young people to special protection of their integrity and to the promotion of their development. This guarantee must also be observed in the execution of custodial sentences against parents.»
Judgment B-5602/2016 of 6 June 2017
National significance of youth organisations.
The Federal Administrative Court specifies the requirements for federal financing of regional youth organisations.
«The appellant represents the cantonal, regional and local service structures of open child and youth work at the national level. The federal structure of Switzerland does not exclude that an organisation with regional focus points can have national significance.»
Judgment B-5269/2014 of 16 March 2016
Delimitation between regular activity and projects worthy of promotion.
The court deals with the distinction between operating costs and project-related financial aid.
«A project is to be regarded as temporally limited when it does not extend over an indefinite period overall, an unspecified period of several years or in some other way over a longer period. It is not excluded that a project is carried out distributed over a limited period.»
Judgment C-7833/2010 of 4 March 2013
Competence for financial aid decisions in youth promotion.
The Federal Administrative Court deals with the legitimacy to appeal in financing decisions under Art. 67 para. 2 FC.
«The rulings of the Federal Social Insurance Office FSIO concerning financial aid for the promotion of extra-curricular youth work are subject to appeal to the Federal Administrative Court. The appellants must substantively demonstrate their legal interests.»