Source: https://www.englishforum.ch/swiss-politics-news/287224-svp-self-determination-initiative-5.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 05:56:37+00:00

Document:
Ok, so the Federal Assembly shall enact provisions that establish binding legal rules in the form of federal acts or ordinances.
The Federal Assembly is comprised of the democratically elected National Council (National Parliament) and Council of States.
So what are these 'provisions'? Where do they comes from? Are they created through Initiatives and Referendums?
- The initiative was considered invalid before a popular vote was held.
- The initiative was not a federal but a cantonal one.
- It was declared invalid by the canton Valais parliament not the federal court.
- The parliament declared it invalid because it would be against federal law.
The federal court decision BGE 1C_76/2018 was more about what the canton Valais parliament can decide and if it overstepped its authority or did not follow canton Valais law by declaring the cantonal initiative as invalid. It did not.
So it's safe to say that initiatives on a cantonal level are subject to being in line with the Federal Constitution.
See Art. 139 https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classifi...ndex.html#a139 of the Constitution what they are.
If the initiative fails to comply with the requirements of consistency of form, and of subject matter, or if it infringes mandatory provisions of international law, the Federal Assembly shall declare it to be invalid in whole or in part.
But once a initiative on the federal level they passed a certain stage it can no longer be declared inadmissible.
Are you referring to Art. 139/4?
If the Federal Assembly is in agreement with an initiative in the form of a general proposal, it shall draft the partial revision on the basis of the initiative and submit it to the vote of the People and the Cantons. If the Federal Assembly rejects the initiative, it shall submit it to a vote of the People; the People shall decide whether the initiative should be adopted. If they vote in favour, the Federal Assembly shall draft the corresponding bill.
So Swiss citizens are their own protectors against violations of human rights. Or did I miss something?
The Bundesgericht can review any cantonal laws for their compliance with the Constitution. It can even review federal laws but it cannot rule the law itself as being unconstitutional.
One of the goals of this initiative is ultimately to withdraw from the ECHR, so that no ‘foreign judges’ can have any say over anything in Switzerland.
Interestingly, the vote on the Selbstbestimmungsinitiative is on the same ticket as the referendum concerning the surveillance of people receiving benefits. The detailed regulation of such surveillance is the result of a decision by the ECtHR (Vukota-Bojić v. Switzerland) which found a violation of Art. 8 ECHR in the use of secret surveillance because, among other reasons, it was basically unregulated under Swiss law.
Another change to Swiss law as the direct result of a ECtHR is the revision of the rules on limitation periods. As far as I know, it will not be subject to a referendum (the deadline ended on 4 October 2018). In Howald Moor and Others v. Switzerland the court found a violation of Art. 6 because the rules on limitation periods infringed the rights of persons suffering from asbestos-related diseases which are generally not even diagnosed within the limitation periods.
"(1) Married couples shall take the husband's surname as their family name.
The law has now changed and, yes, that change can be traced back to a ECtHR decision (Burghartz v Switzerland, 1994). (The decision actually concerned a Swiss man who married in Germany and took his wife’s name. The Swiss registry office recorded the family name as his surname.) Would that have happened on its own? That decision was in 1994!
4. Acts of the Federal Assembly or the Federal Council may not be challenged in the Federal Supreme Court. Exceptions may be provided for by law.
How does that contradict my observation that 'Swiss citizens are their own protectors against violations of human rights'?
I cannot find anywhere in the SBI text where there is a reference to withdrawing from the ECHR, so I have to assume that you think that a certain portion of the SBI text would inevitably lead to Switzerland's agreement to be party to the ECHR being meaningless and/or severed.
If this is the case, could you point me to the exact portion of the SBI text which you interpret in this way?
I will be clear about one thing though - In my personal view I am against the notion of any foreign body (aka. non-citizen body, group or individual) having the power to make decisions on National law, or the application of said National law, which decisions are deemed to be obligatory for the Nation in question to enforce. I have, however, no problem with advisory determinations being made by the same.
Thanks for bringing that to mind. I had the time to read through the judgement (http://statewatch.org/news/2016/oct/...ment-10-16.pdf).
Article 8 of the Convention.
In a nutshell: "We don't think your domestic law is specific enough, so therefore you are breach of Article 8 of the Convention"
The conclusion of the majority is based on the principles of foreseeability ... In particular, (1) when the surveillance is carried out in secret, the risks of arbitrariness are evident; and (2) domestic law must give citizens an adequate indication as to the circumstances and conditions of secret surveillance.
First, there is no evidence of abuse or arbitrariness at any stage (monitoring, storage of materials, access to reports and presentation in the court proceedings). ... The applicant was informed about the secret surveillance, had access to the reports and challenged them in the national courts.
any abuse or offence, the resulting burden must not be excessively high in order not to adversely affect those who do not have any intention to abuse or offend.
- The applicant's fundamental human rights were not infringed upon.
- The surveillance material in fact revealed that the applicant was not in good standing as pertains to her claims in the Swiss judicial system.
- The court's claim that 'The interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 was not, therefore, “in accordance with the law”', is not due to said 'interference' being against "the (Swiss) law" but rather because, in the judges' opinion, the Swiss law was not specific enough to say that the 'interference' was '"in accordance with the law"'.
It's this the sort of quackery which turns people off to the ECHR.
Furthermore, there seems to be an implication that had it not been for the ECHR intervening/meddling in Swiss law and jurisprudence that we, the Swiss citizen and resident, would be worse off for it. I take this to be rather presumptuous. There is every likelihood that the Swiss would themselves have taken measures to clarify the related laws - but even if the Swiss people did not think it necessary to make the existing law more specific, how is that not their right as a sovereign, independent and democratic people?
I will have to go through this one another time as I have run out of time at the present.
I’m sure the people affected felt fortunate that they could call upon ‘foreign judges’ to help them protect their rights.
What 'rights' were 'protected' in the case of Vukota-Bojić vs Switzerland? Or let me ask it the other way ... what 'rights' were violated by Switzerland?
Would these changes have come about anyway? Possibly. Probably not, though.
And is it not up to the Swiss people to decide for themselves what laws they do or do not wish to live under?
I will have to postpone looking into this more in-depth due to time constraints, but if this is you're idea of making a case for the necessity of the ECHR to overrule our Swiss law then I honestly think you need to do better - a lot better!
Would that have happened on its own? That decision was in 1994!
Again, is it not up to the Swiss people to decide for themselves what laws they do or do not wish to live under? You, and I could be wrong, seem to be of the mind that, no, it is not.
It is very good of you to give answers to EAB questions.
You should firstly consider what are the OP reasons for posting detailed questions about the Swiss Constitution in an English Forum which is not the best place for obtaining such information.
Secondly you should note the OP only responds to such answers with criticism and also fails to provide any new information.
For me this is classic troll behaviour.
Of course if you want to continue feeding this troll then this is your prerogative.
Myself I already voted so I have no interest in further debating.
Perhaps it is 'not the best place'? But this 'place' seems to be just fine to you for very bold statements to be made which are in line with your views, statements which pertain to the Swiss Constitution, statements which you readily give the thumbs-up to. Those claims are the 'reasons' for why I am bringing up the Swiss Constitution here.
Nonsense. I agreed with a number of things stated in reply to my posts, and I also brought forward new information/questions to the discussion.
Pathetic. Can't discuss the subject matter so you have to stoop to accusing me of being a troll.
Well obviously, unlike myself, you have no need of further knowledge or information on the SBI, which begs the question "Why are you still active in this thread at all? .... Unless you are here just to ... ... ... TROLL!?".
So FAB annoys you. Why pretend you got something sophisticated to say?
Although I tend to agree with you on this one, I don't think your reaction helps.
Don't assume everyone is so easy to manipulate or better said, so eager to be manipulated. If we gave up commenting on every little thing here and on every post and every poster....just don't assume. My impression is your reactions have the opposite effect than the one intended. Take care.
So you too think I am trolling??
I must be one heck of a troll. Probably part of the tiny minority of trolls who can be bothered to take the hours needed to read dozens of pages of legislative and judicial information, and then comment with quotations from said information.
That's one heck of a dedicated troll.
Simply, like you, exercising my privilege to politely express my opinion.
Sorry marton but that is grossly wrong. You are mixing up initiatives (proposal from the people to change the constitution) and referendum (veto of the people against a new or changed act from the federal assembly).
The people cannot(*) directly propose a new act or change of an act on federal level. They might do so in some cantons.
May be you should have a look int the book again. Or Mr. Cormon is also wrong.
But surely the 2014 Masseneinwanderung initiative did propose specific changes to the Constitution, or do I miss something?
Not forgetting that these changes were not made despite the success of the initiative.
Art. 121a (neu) Steuerung der Zuwanderung"
In explaining federal court rulings the NZZ is the best option after reading the federal court ruling yourself. English and condesed news will only bring you forward so much when it is about Swiss politics.
Short of military intervention from other countries? Yes.
Then you can start pondering about the proposed Art. 56a Abs. 2, how a cluster feck of a contradiction Art. 5 and Art. 190 are.
Are you trolling? What irony considering your claim about others in this thread. Do you really not know the difference between the constitution and a federal act? how they come to be and what legal obligations they bring?
All explained in the booklet of the federal chancellery I linked. Available in German, French, Italian, Rumantsch, and English.
That is the whole point of Iniatives, but you were talking about Referendums.
New federal acts are created by referendum.
Wrong. They are confirmed or rejected by referendum.
The federal popular initiative (German: Eidgenössische Volksinitiative, French: Initiative populaire fédérale, Italian: Iniziativa popolare federale).
A referendum is a referendum, and initiative is not.
The logic here is that you are assuming Swiss judges can be mistaken or biassed but interntaional judges cannot.
What is to prevent the reverse being true?
But there is also an experience value that should be considered before all of a sudden getting scared shitless of something that's been a certain way for a very long time.
No, that is not the logic at all. The example has nothing to do with Swiss judges as they as a rule do not make law in Switzerland. The judges of the ECtHR, which does have a Swiss judge, ruled that that an individual's rights were violated. The Swiss judges had previously ruled on the case applying the law as it stood at the time. No mistakes. Bias, I don't know.
After the ECtHR decision, a proposal was made to amend the law, by a Nationalrat I think. It made its way through all the proper channels in the government until a recommendation was made. The proposed amendments were introduced and the deadline for a referendum passed unused and it became law.
All explained in the booklet of the federal chancellery i linked.
If I am not mistaken Art. 163 is simply saying that the Federal Assembly is tasked with the responsibility of making laws, other than the 'federal decree'. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding this.
... das Bundesgericht hingegen zum Schluss, der Beschluss des Walliser Grossen Rats verletze keine politischen Rechte.
But I agree, there was definitely more clarification in the NZZ article.
Ok, that is what I thought was the case from the start. The Swiss citizen is their own protector against violations of human rights.
In the case of a contradiction, ensure an adaptation of international law obligations in line with the requirements of the Federal Constitution, if necessary by termination of the relevant international treaties.
If I understand this correctly, I am completely in favor of this. We should not be entering into any international agreements which contravene the democratically decided upon will of the Swiss people, which will is recorded in our Constitution.
I can see how someone might think there is a contradiction here, but upon deeper inspection I don't think there is any.
Art. 5/4, to my understanding, is mandating the Confederation and Cantons to respect international law. This does not mean, to me, that any and all international rules/agreements/treaties in existence must be applied/adhered to by Switzerland, but rather that any international rules/agreements/treaties which Switzerland is a signatory to must be respected by Switzerland.
Art. 190, to my understanding, is mandating the Swiss judiciary to apply to their determinations and proceedings the international law which Switzerland are signatories to.
1. The Swiss people decide that the Swiss Constitution is the highest authority in Switzerland as pertains to law.
2. Following from the above, all domestic and international contracts must be in accordance with the Swiss Constitution.
I honestly do not see any contradiction there.
That only works up to a point.
If you agree that HR are universally valid, there's a problem once they're withdrawn from any individual or group, whatever the criteria for the withdrawal may happen to be. That's where superior law comes handy. And yes, from that POV the HR agreement is the only means guaranteed to apply to, and therefore protect, everybody.

References: Art. 139
 Art. 139
 v. 
 Art. 8
 v. 
 Art. 6

Art. 121
 Art. 56
 Art. 5
 Art. 190
 Art. 163

Art. 5

Art. 190