In Switzerland, a federal act (de|Bundesgesetz, fr|Loi fédérale, it|Legge federale) is a legislative law adopted at the level of the Confederation. By default, its duration of application is unlimited. It takes precedence over cantonal and communal law (derogatory force).
The Federal Constitution defines a federal law as follows:The ParlA uses this definition in the same terms.[1]
A "rule of law" exists when an adopted provision (cumulatively):[2]
Determining the importance of the provision is the product of a political assessment. However, the Federal Constitution states that "fundamental provisions" in the following areas are subject to mandatory federal legislation:[3]
The doctrine makes a distinction between:
The Federal Constitution, however, uses the term "act"[4] to refer to legal acts which are adopted in the legislative procedure and which fall within the competence of the Federal Assembly.
The Federal Constitution also provides for the Federal Assembly to enact so-called urgent federal laws. These are defined as follows:The Federal Assembly alone is competent to declare a law urgent.[5] [6]
A federal law is adopted by the Federal Assembly. It therefore requires the approval of the National Council and the Council of States[7] in the same terms.[8]
It is subject to referendum, which means that it is subject to an optional referendum.[9] This means that if 50,000 signatures are collected within 100 days of its official publication (in the Federal Gazette), or if eight cantons request it within the same period, the law is submitted to a vote of the people alone.[10] [11] If the people accept the federal law in a vote, it comes into force; if they reject it, it does not come into force.
In the Federal Constitutions of 1848 and 1874, the Federal Court has no power to review the constitutionality of federal laws.
In the 1999 full amendment, the draft submitted by the Federal Council contained the following provision:This proposal by the Federal Council was opposed in the National Council. During the debate, the former head of the FDJP, Christian Democrat Federal Councillor Arnold Koller, opposed the introduction of an abstract control as in Germany and France.[12] He justifies this position by the fact that abstract control represents a continuation of politics by other means ("nur eine Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln"). It therefore advocates a concrete control, as provided for in the Federal Council's draft. However, this was rejected by the National Council by 87 votes to 39.[13]
Two parliamentary initiatives were tabled after the full amendment of 1999, one in 2005 by the Aargau Evangelical National Councillor Heiner Studer,[14] the other in 2007 by the Zurich Socialist National Councillor Vreni Müller-Hemmi.[15] The two initiatives are dealt with in a single report by the Legal Affairs Committee of the National Council (CAJ-N),[16] which proposes the abrogation of Article 190 of the Federal Constitution.[17] The Federal Council is in favour of the abrogation.[18]
During the debate on the introduction of the subject in the National Council,[19] the German-speaking committee rapporteur, the Zurich Green Daniel Vischer, spoke of an object with a certain historical significance for Switzerland ("gewisse epochale Bedeutung für dieses Land").[20] By a narrow majority of 94 votes[21] to 86,[22] the National Council accepts the bill.[23] However, the project did not pass the Council of States, which rejected it by 17 votes to 27.[24]
Some authors consider it unlikely that a constitutional court will be introduced at federal level in the future.
The relationship between federal laws and the Federal Constitution is governed by Article 190 Cst:
The consequence of this principle is that the (administrative and judicial) authorities of the cantons and the Confederation, in particular the Federal Court (FC), must apply federal laws, even if they contradict the Federal Constitution.