1Die Nationalstrassen sowie die Beiträge an Massnahmen zur Verbesserung der Verkehrsinfrastruktur in Städten und Agglomerationen im Zusammenhang mit dem Strassenverkehr werden über einen Fonds finanziert.
2Dem Fonds werden die folgenden Mittel zugewiesen:
a.
der Reinertrag der Nationalstrassenabgabe nach Artikel 85a;
b.
der Reinertrag der besonderen Verbrauchssteuer nach Artikel 131 Absatz 1 Buchstabe d;
c.
der Reinertrag des Zuschlags nach Artikel 131 Absatz 2 Buchstabe a;
d.
der Reinertrag der Abgabe nach Artikel 131 Absatz 2 Buchstabe b;
e.
ein Anteil des Reinertrags der Verbrauchssteuer auf allen Treibstoffen, ausser den Flugtreibstoffen, nach Artikel 131 Absatz 1 Buchstabe e; der Anteil beträgt je 9 Prozent der Mittel nach Buchstabe c und der Hälfte des Reinertrags der Verbrauchssteuer auf allen Treibstoffen, ausser den Flugtreibstoffen, höchstens aber 310 Millionen Franken pro Jahr; das Gesetz regelt die Indexierung dieses Betrags;
f.
in der Regel 10 Prozent des Reinertrags der Verbrauchssteuer auf allen Treibstoffen, ausser den Flugtreibstoffen, nach Artikel 131 Absatz 1 Buchstabe e;
g.
die Erträge zur Kompensation von Mehraufwendungen für neu ins Nationalstrassennetz aufgenommene Strecken aus der Spezialfinanzierung nach Absatz 3 Buchstabe g und aus Beiträgen der Kantone;
h.
weitere vom Gesetz zugewiesene Mittel, die im Zusammenhang mit dem Strassenverkehr stehen.
3Für folgende Aufgaben und Aufwendungen im Zusammenhang mit dem Strassenverkehr wird eine Spezialfinanzierung geführt:
a.
Beiträge an Massnahmen zur Förderung des kombinierten Verkehrs und des Transports begleiteter Motorfahrzeuge;
b.
Beiträge an die Kosten für Hauptstrassen;
c.
Beiträge an Schutzbauten gegen Naturgewalten und an Massnahmen des Umwelt- und Landschaftsschutzes, die der Strassenverkehr nötig macht;
d.
allgemeine Beiträge an die kantonalen Kosten für Strassen, die dem Motorfahrzeugverkehr geöffnet sind;
e.
Beiträge an Kantone ohne Nationalstrassen;
f.
Forschung und Verwaltung;
g.
Beiträge an den Fonds nach Absatz 2 Buchstabe g.
4Der Spezialfinanzierung wird die Hälfte des Reinertrags der Verbrauchssteuer auf allen Treibstoffen, ausser den Flugtreibstoffen, nach Artikel 131 Absatz 1 Buchstabe e abzüglich der Mittel nach Absatz 2 Buchstabe e gutgeschrieben.
5Ist der Bedarf in der Spezialfinanzierung ausgewiesen und soll in der Spezialfinanzierung eine angemessene Rückstellung gebildet werden, so sind Erträge aus der Verbrauchssteuer nach Artikel 131 Absatz 1 Buchstabe d, statt dem Fonds zuzuweisen, der Spezialfinanzierung gutzuschreiben.
Overview
Art. 86 Federal Constitution regulates the financing of national roads and transport infrastructure in cities and agglomerations. The provision creates two separate funds: the National Roads and Agglomeration Transport Fund (NAF) and the special financing for road traffic. This earmarking ensures that revenue from road traffic is also used for road traffic.
The NAF primarily finances national roads (motorways and semi-motorways) as well as transport projects in agglomerations. It receives revenue from the motorway vignette, mineral oil tax surcharges and generally 10 percent of the general mineral oil tax. For this mineral oil tax, there is an upper limit of 310 million francs per year. The motorway vignette is legally disputed: while the Federal Council classified it as a fee, the prevailing doctrine sees it as a tax, since its amount is independent of road use.
The special financing receives the remaining mineral oil tax revenue and finances other road-related tasks. These include contributions to cantonal main roads, environmental protection measures and general road contributions to the cantons. Research and administration are also financed from this.
Both financing instruments may only be used for purposes «in connection with road traffic». This formulation is to be interpreted broadly: railways or cycle paths can also be financed if they demonstrably relieve roads.
Example: A canton plans an S-Bahn line in an agglomeration. Although this involves rail transport, the Confederation can contribute NAF funds if the S-Bahn reduces car traffic and thus relieves roads.
N. 1 Art. 86 Cst. establishes a constitutional foundation for the financing system for national roads and transport infrastructure in cities and agglomerations. The current version of Art. 86 Cst. is the result of several constitutional revisions, with the most significant change occurring with the creation of the National Roads and Agglomeration Transport Fund (NAF) on 1 January 2018. The foundation was the "National Roads and Agglomeration Transport Fund" proposal accepted by the people on 12 February 2017 (BBl 2015 1899).
N. 2 The historical development of road financing began under the Federal Constitution of 1874. Art. 36ter Cst. 1874 provided that federal customs revenues from fuels and combustibles as well as the net proceeds from any consumption tax had to be used for the needs of road traffic. With Art. 36quinquies Cst. 1874, the national road charge (vignette) was introduced in 1982 (Beusch, BSK BV, Art. 86 N. 1).
N. 3 The decisive paradigm shift occurred with the NAF proposal of 2017, which replaced the previous "special financing for road traffic" with an unlimited fund. The message emphasised the necessity of a long-term secured financing basis for the growing infrastructure tasks (BBl 2015 1899, 1901 ff.). The NAF combines the financing of national roads with that of agglomeration programmes and creates a more stable financing basis through the earmarking of various revenue sources.
N. 4 Art. 86 Cst. is located in Title 3 "Confederation, Cantons and Communes", Chapter 2 "Powers", Section 7 "Public Works and Transport". The provision is in close systematic connection with the other transport provisions, particularly → Art. 82 para. 3 Cst. (roads), → Art. 83 Cst. (national roads) and → Art. 85 Cst. (heavy vehicle charge). Together, these provisions form the constitutional foundation of Swiss transport infrastructure policy (Beusch, BSK BV, Art. 86 N. 4).
N. 5 The financing provision is furthermore to be read together with → Art. 126 Cst. (budget management) and → Art. 131 Cst. (special consumption taxes). Art. 131 Cst. defines the tax bases whose proceeds are partially earmarked via Art. 86 Cst. The relationship to → Art. 85a Cst. (national road charge) is clarified by the direct allocation of proceeds to the NAF in Art. 86 para. 2 lit. a Cst.
N. 6 In the federalist context, Art. 86 Cst. is to be understood as an expression of concurrent legislative power. The Confederation fully finances the national roads (Art. 83 para. 2 Cst.), while it participates subsidiarily in other roads through contributions. The cantonal road power according to → Art. 82 para. 1 Cst. remains fundamentally preserved.
#3. Elements of the Offence / Content of the Provision
#3.1 The National Roads and Agglomeration Transport Fund (para. 1)
N. 7 Paragraph 1 defines the purpose of use of the NAF: financing national roads as well as contributions to measures for improving transport infrastructure in cities and agglomerations. According to the interpretation of the Federal Office of Justice, the term "transport infrastructure" is to be understood comprehensively and includes all modes of transport, i.e. also rail, pedestrian and bicycle traffic (JAAC 70.1, BBl 2007 6373, 6381).
N. 8 The formulation "in connection with road traffic" limits the use to measures that have a functional connection to road traffic. According to the practice of the Federal Office of Justice, this connection exists not only with direct road infrastructure projects, but also when the measures lead to a concrete relief of specific roads (JAAC 70.1; Beusch, BSK BV, Art. 86 N. 22).
N. 9 Paragraph 2 exhaustively lists the funds allocated to the NAF. The most important revenue sources are:
National road charge (vignette) according to Art. 85a Cst. (lit. a)
Mineral oil tax surcharge on fuels (lit. c)
Automobile tax on imported passenger cars (lit. d)
A defined share of the general mineral oil tax (lit. e and f)
N. 10 The complex calculation formula in lit. e ensures that an appropriate share of the mineral oil tax revenues flows to the NAF, but limits this to a maximum of 310 million francs per year (indexed). This upper limit was a central element of the political compromise in creating the NAF.
#3.3 The Special Financing for Road Traffic (para. 3 and 4)
N. 11 Parallel to the NAF, the special financing for road traffic continues, which finances the tasks listed in para. 3. These include particularly contributions to main roads (lit. b), environmental protection measures (lit. c) and general contributions to cantonal road costs (lit. d). According to para. 4, the special financing receives half of the mineral oil tax revenues, minus the funds allocated to the NAF.
N. 12 Art. 86 Cst. establishes a constitutional earmarking of the listed revenues. This earmarking is binding for the legislature; any other use of the funds would be unconstitutional. However, the provision does not create subjective rights to specific benefits — neither for private parties nor for cantons or communes.
N. 13 For the cantons, Art. 86 Cst. gives rise to claims to federal contributions within the framework of the programmes specified by law. The design of these contribution systems occurs at the legislative level, whereby the Confederation has considerable discretion. The cantons have no direct constitutional right to a specific contribution amount.
N. 14 The fund structure of the NAF ensures that the earmarked revenues remain available for infrastructure projects over several accounting years. This enables long-term planning and realisation of major projects independent of annual budgeting.
N. 15 A central point of dispute concerns the legal nature of the national road charge. While the Federal Council assumed it was a fee with fiscal character (Beusch, BSK BV, Art. 86 N. 17), the prevailing doctrine qualifies the vignette as an expenditure tax, since the degree of use has no influence on the charge amount (Beusch, BSK BV, Art. 86 N. 17; Reich, Steuerrecht, § 2 N. 45).
N. 16 The use of road traffic revenues for rail infrastructure in agglomerations was controversially discussed. The popular initiative "For fair transport financing" demanded that the entire net proceeds should be used exclusively for road traffic (Beusch, BSK BV, Art. 86 N. 23). The Federal Office of Justice, on the other hand, took the position that proceeds from the fuel tax may be used for the infrastructure of all modes of transport, insofar as this provides concrete relief for specific roads (VPB 70.1).
N. 17 The delimitation between NAF-eligible agglomeration projects and pure local traffic measures is disputed in practice. The criteria for co-financing by the Confederation are specified at the ordinance level, whereby the requirement of supra-regional benefit sometimes leads to delimitation difficulties.
N. 18 In planning transport infrastructure projects, it must be clarified early whether financing through NAF funds is possible. The agglomeration programmes are subject to a four-year planning cycle with specific submission deadlines. Cantons and communes must incorporate their projects into the cantonal structure plans in good time.
N. 19 The requirement of "connection with road traffic" is to be interpreted broadly. Even pure public transport projects can receive NAF contributions if they demonstrably lead to relief of the road network. However, the project sponsors must concretely demonstrate and quantify this relief effect.
N. 20 In using the special financing funds (para. 3), the cantons have greater freedoms than with NAF projects. The general contributions according to para. 3 lit. d can be used for all roads open to motor vehicle traffic, without project-specific approval from the Confederation. This enables more flexible cantonal road planning.
Case Law
Case law on Art. 86 Cst. is limited due to the technical character of the norm as a financing basis for transport infrastructure. The relevant decisions primarily address questions concerning the earmarking of fuel tax revenues and the constitutional interpretation of purposes of use.
#Constitutional Interpretation and Earmarking of Special Financing
Legal Opinion BJ-05-08-3 of 3 August 2005 (Constitutionality of the use of mineral oil tax revenues for rail infrastructure in agglomeration transport)
The fundamental legal opinion of the Federal Office of Justice clarifies central interpretation questions regarding Art. 86 para. 3 lit. b^bis Cst. concerning the financing of transport infrastructure in agglomerations. The FOJ found that «transport infrastructure» encompasses all modes of transport, including rail.
«Art. 86 para. 3 Cst. stipulates that half of the net proceeds from consumption tax on fuels as well as the net proceeds from the heavy vehicle charge may be used for the enumerated tasks and expenditures insofar as they are 'related to road traffic'. The connection to road traffic exists not only when contributions are used directly for road infrastructure; it also exists when contributions lead to concrete relief for specific roads.»
The relevance of this opinion lies in the systematic constitutional interpretation, which created the basis for modern agglomeration transport financing and shows that the earmarking is not rigidly limited to road projects, but enables cross-modal transport solutions.
BGE 112 IV 102 of 21 October 1986 (Heavy vehicle charge; vignette obligation)
This leading decision addresses the practical application of the heavy vehicle charge and confirms the constitutional basis of transport financing. The Federal Supreme Court specified the requirements for proper vignette affixing.
«Anyone who carries the vignette loose in the vehicle when driving on a motorway is to be punished for using a national road 'with a vehicle without valid vignette' within the meaning of Art. 9 para. 1 NSAV.»
The decision is relevant for the financing foundations as it ensures the practical enforcement of the heavy vehicle charge as a central source of revenue for the national roads fund.
A-1849/2013 of 20 August 2013 (FAC): Use of fuel tax revenues for aviation training; the FAC specified the margin of discretion in granting contributions and confirmed the restrictive interpretation of Art. 86 para. 3 Cst.
A-1851/2013 of 20 August 2013 (FAC): Parallel decision to A-1849/2013 concerning basic training in aircraft maintenance; reinforces the requirement of a concrete safety reference beyond minimum standards.
Parliamentary practice shows a continuous development of financing modalities, whereby the constitutional mandate for earmarked use of funds has always been respected.