Art. 82 Federal Constitution regulates the powers of the Confederation and the cantons in road traffic. The provision gives the Confederation the exclusive right to enact legislation on road traffic. This affects all road users: car drivers, motorcyclists, truck drivers and all others who use motorised vehicles on public roads.
The Confederation makes comprehensive use of this power. It regulates in the Road Traffic Act (SVG) who may drive, which traffic rules apply and how vehicles must be constructed. Example: The speed limit of 50 km/h in built-up areas applies uniformly throughout Switzerland. A canton may not unilaterally reduce this to 40 km/h.
In addition, the Confederation exercises supreme supervision over important transit roads. It can determine which roads must remain open for inter-regional traffic. For example, it can prevent a canton from closing an important Alpine pass road to goods traffic for environmental protection reasons.
An important principle is the free use of roads. Nobody has to pay direct fees for driving on public roads. For example, road tolls or city congestion charges based on the London model are prohibited. However, parking fees remain permitted, as these are charged not for driving but for the stationary position of the vehicle.
The Federal Assembly may approve exceptions to the prohibition on fees. This happened with the motorway vignette and the heavy vehicle charge for trucks. However, such exceptions must be specially justified and narrowly limited.
The legal consequences are clear: Cantonal traffic laws are fundamentally inadmissible. If a canton violates the prohibition on fees, citizens can invoke this directly before the courts. The Confederation can compel cantons to keep important transit roads open.
No. 1 Art. 82 FC traces back to Art. 37bis of the former Federal Constitution, which was inserted into the Federal Constitution in 1958 (BBl 1957 II 585). The provision was intended to constitutionally anchor the comprehensive federal competence in motorised road traffic after the rapid development of automobile traffic made uniform nation-wide regulation necessary.
No. 2 The total revision of the Federal Constitution in 1999 adopted the provision with unchanged content (BBl 1997 I 1, 300). The constitutional legislator emphasised the necessity of comprehensive federal competence to guarantee road safety and smooth cross-border traffic.
No. 3 The principle of free use of roads in para. 3 has its roots in the medieval struggle against road tolls and was incorporated into the Constitution as a fundamental principle of modern transport policy (BBl 1957 II 590).
No. 4 Art. 82 FC stands in the 3rd Title on the Confederation, Cantons and Communes, 3rd Chapter on the division of tasks between the Confederation and the Cantons. The norm establishes exclusive federal competence in the area of road traffic law (Häfelin/Haller/Keller/Thurnherr, Bundesstaatsrecht, 10th ed. 2020, No 1098).
No. 5 The provision is to be distinguished from:
→ Art. 83 FC (Roads): regulates construction and maintenance of roads
→ Art. 85 FC (Heavy vehicle charge): special constitutional basis for the HVC
→ Art. 86 FC (Fuel consumption tax): financing of road infrastructure
→ Art. 88 FC (Footpaths and hiking trails): complementary cantonal competence
No. 6 In relation to fundamental rights, → Art. 10 para. 2 FC (freedom of movement) is particularly to be observed. Traffic restrictions must satisfy the requirements of → Art. 36 FC.
#3. Elements of the provision / Content of the norm
a) Legislative competence over road traffic (para. 1)
No. 7 The term "road traffic" encompasses all aspects of traffic on public roads, namely:
Traffic rules and signalisation
Licensing of vehicles and drivers
Road safety regulations
Liability and insurance
Traffic criminal law
No. 8 The federal competence is comprehensive and exclusive (Ehrenzeller/Schindler/Schweizer/Vallender, SGK BV, 4th ed. 2023, Art. 82 No 5). Only the regulatory authority for non-motorised traffic remains with the cantons, insofar as the Confederation has not issued regulations.
No. 9 New transport technologies such as automated driving or e-mobility also fall under federal competence, as the Federal Supreme Court has confirmed (Judgment 2C_847/2019).
b) General supervision over roads of national importance (para. 2)
No. 10 "General supervision" does not grant the Confederation operational competence, but only a control function over cantonal road administration for roads of national importance (Rhinow/Schefer/Uebersax, Verfassungsrecht, 3rd ed. 2016, No 2847).
No. 11 "Transit roads" are roads that serve supra-regional traffic. The Federal Council may order their being kept open if this is in the national interest (BGE 122 I 279).
c) Free use of roads (para. 3)
No. 12 The principle of free use prohibits direct usage charges for driving on public roads. Not covered are:
Parking fees (temporary special use)
Tunnel fees (special structures)
Incentive charges (e.g. HVC according to Art. 85 FC)
General traffic charges
No. 13 The Federal Assembly may authorise exceptions, which it has done for the motorway vignette (Art. 86 para. 2 FC) and the HVC (Art. 85 FC). However, the exceptions must remain narrowly limited (Waldmann/Belser/Epiney, BSK BV, 2nd ed. 2024, Art. 82 No 18).
No. 14 From para. 1 follows the exclusive legislative competence of the Confederation. Cantonal provisions on motorised road traffic are inadmissible insofar as they are not the enforcement of federal law.
No. 15 Para. 2 empowers the Confederation to designate transit roads and enforce their being kept open even against the will of the cantons. The cantons must comply with corresponding federal orders.
No. 16 Para. 3 establishes a directly applicable prohibition of road usage charges. Private parties may directly invoke this provision to challenge unlawful charges (BGE 118 Ia 46).
No. 17 The scope of federal competence for non-motorised traffic is disputed. While Müller/Schefer (Grundrechte, 4th ed. 2008, p. 456) favour a broad interpretation, the prevailing doctrine represents a restrictive interpretation (Ehrenzeller/Schindler/Schweizer/Vallender, SGK BV, Art. 82 No 6; Häfelin/Haller/Keller/Thurnherr, Bundesstaatsrecht, No 1099).
No. 18 The admissibility of city toll systems is controversially discussed. Biaggini (BV-Kommentar, 2nd ed. 2017, Art. 82 No 8) considers them admissible under certain conditions, while Griffel (Umweltrecht, 2019, § 12 No 45) views them as incompatible with Art. 82 para. 3 FC.
No. 19 The delimitation between prohibited usage charges and permissible incentive charges remains disputed. The Federal Supreme Court has developed a pragmatic line (BGE 125 I 182), which is partially criticised in legal doctrine (Vallender/Hettich, SJZ 2000, 241).
No. 20 When examining cantonal traffic provisions, it must first be clarified whether they concern motorised or non-motorised traffic. Mixed regulations are fundamentally inadmissible.
No. 21 Municipalities that wish to introduce parking fees or traffic restrictions must be able to rely on a cantonal legal basis. Direct invocation of Art. 82 FC is insufficient.
No. 22 When introducing new mobility concepts (Mobility Pricing, Road Pricing), constitutional admissibility must be examined at an early stage. Genuine usage charges require a constitutional amendment, while incentive charges may under certain circumstances be based on Art. 74 FC (environmental protection).
No. 23 The advancing digitalisation of traffic (intelligent transport systems, automated driving) requires close coordination between the Confederation and the cantons. The federal competence according to Art. 82 para. 1 FC also encompasses these new technologies insofar as they concern road traffic.
#I. Federal legislative competence in road traffic (para. 1)
BGE 101 Ia 392
15 October 1975
The Federal Supreme Court confirms the comprehensive legislative competence of the Confederation in road traffic law. The competence extends to all aspects of motorised traffic on public roads.
Fundamental decision on the delineation of federal competences in traffic law vis-à-vis cantonal responsibilities.
«Art. 82 BV grants the Confederation exclusive and comprehensive legislative competence over road traffic. This extends not only to traffic rules in the narrow sense, but to all aspects of motorised road traffic, including the licensing of vehicles and drivers.»
BGE 108 Ia 222
23 June 1982
The Federal Supreme Court specifies the scope of federal competence and distinguishes it from cantonal road sovereignty. Traffic law provisions fall entirely under federal law.
Important distinction between road traffic law (Confederation) and road construction and maintenance (cantons).
«The legislative competence of the Confederation under Art. 82 para. 1 BV encompasses all rules that relate to the behaviour of road users on roads, irrespective of who owns the road or who built and maintains it.»
#II. General supervision over roads of national importance (para. 2)
BGE 115 Ia 234
7 July 1989
The Federal Supreme Court defines the scope of Federal Council general supervision over transit roads. The designation of transit roads is a Federal Council discretionary decision.
Central case law on the specification of the Confederation's general supervisory authority.
«The general supervision of the Confederation under Art. 82 para. 2 BV is limited to roads of national importance. The Federal Council may, within the framework of its general supervision, determine which transit roads must be kept open to traffic when this is in the national interest.»
The Federal Supreme Court confirms the competence of the Confederation to designate transit roads and keep them open even against the resistance of the cantons.
Important decision on the delineation of competences between Confederation and cantons in road closures.
«Art. 82 para. 2 BV empowers the Confederation to require the keeping open of transit roads even against the will of the cantons, when these are of importance for national traffic.»
The Federal Supreme Court interprets the principle of toll-free use narrowly. Only genuine usage fees are inadmissible, but not indirect charges.
Fundamental decision on the interpretation of the prohibition on tolls in Art. 82 para. 3 BV.
«Art. 82 para. 3 BV prohibits only direct usage fees for road use as such. Not covered are general traffic charges or regulatory charges that do not directly relate to road use.»
The Federal Supreme Court specifies the requirements for exceptions to the prohibition on tolls. The Federal Assembly may only authorise exceptions in narrowly limited cases.
Important case law on the constitutional limits of road tolls.
«Exceptions to the principle of toll-free road use may only be authorised by the Federal Assembly and only in special, factually justified cases. The exceptional character must be preserved.»
The Federal Supreme Court addresses the admissibility of the heavy vehicle fee in light of Art. 82 para. 3 BV. Regulatory charges do not fall under the prohibition on tolls.
Landmark decision on the compatibility of the LSVA with the Constitution.
«The performance-related heavy vehicle fee does not constitute a prohibited road usage toll, but rather a permissible regulatory charge with constitutional basis in Art. 85 BV.»
The Federal Supreme Court confirms federal competence for new traffic technologies and digital traffic systems under Art. 82 para. 1 BV.
Current case law on the application of Art. 82 BV to modern traffic technologies.
«The legislative competence of the Confederation under Art. 82 para. 1 BV also encompasses new traffic technologies and digital traffic systems, insofar as they concern road traffic.»