Case law on Swiss naturalisation

Case law

Leading decisions

Summaries are ours and simplified; the official text governs. Older decisions applied the law in force before 2018 and are noted where relevant.

BGE 129 I 217 (Emmen) (2003-07-09)

The court held that voters deciding naturalisation applications at the ballot box are bound by fundamental rights, and that refusals in Emmen based on the applicants' origin breached the ban on discrimination (Art. 8(2) Cst.) and the duty to give reasons. A refusal of naturalisation may not be based on an applicant's origin, and a negative decision must be reasoned.
Source

BGE 129 I 232 (2003-07-09)

The court held that a municipal initiative in Zurich to put naturalisation applications to a ballot vote was invalid, because a ballot cannot provide constitutionally adequate reasons and conflicts with applicants' privacy (Art. 13 Cst.). Naturalisation is treated as an administrative decision on an individual: applicants are parties with a right to be heard and to reasons for a refusal.
Source

BGE 134 I 56 (Birr) (2008-02-27)

The court held that refusing the wife was compatible with the Constitution given insufficient German and civics knowledge, but refusing the husband because his wife wears a headscarf was unjustified discrimination, since wearing it does not in itself express views contrary to democratic values. Wearing a religious headscarf is not on its own a valid ground to refuse naturalisation, while genuine language and civics gaps can be.
Source

BGE 135 I 49 (2008-12-16)

The court held that refusing naturalisation to a young woman with a mental disability solely because she depended on social assistance breached the ban on discrimination, since the self-sufficiency requirement affects persons with disabilities in a specific way. Dependence on social assistance that results from a disability may not on its own justify a refusal. Decided under the law in force before 2018.
Source

BGE 135 II 161 (2009-01-29)

The court held that the authority bears the burden of proving that a naturalisation was obtained by deception, found deliberately false statements about the marriage in this case, and ruled that annulment does not automatically extend to all naturalised family members. False statements about a marriage can lead to annulment; whether children also lose citizenship requires a separate assessment.
Source

BGE 137 I 235 (2011-04-13)

The court addressed the language level that may normally be required of applicants and minimum procedural standards for assessing language skills, endorsing the cantonal court view that oral skills of B1 to B2 may be required while written requirements should not exceed A2. Language requirements must be proportionate and assessed fairly; written standards set too high risk discriminating against less educated applicants. Decided under the law in force before 2018.
Source

BGE 138 I 305 (2012-06-12)

The court held that since the 2009 amendment of the BüG introduced a duty to give reasons and court review, applicants for ordinary naturalisation may also plead arbitrariness (Art. 9 Cst.) and unequal treatment (Art. 8(1) Cst.). An applicant can challenge a refusal in court as arbitrary or unequal, not only as discriminatory.
Source

BGE 139 I 169 (2013-05-13)

The court held that excluding persons with a mental disability from naturalisation for lack of their own will is not provided for by law and is discriminatory in its general effect, and that the cantonal finding of discrimination did not breach communal autonomy. A person with a mental disability cannot be refused naturalisation merely because they cannot form their own wish to naturalise.
Source

BGE 140 I 99 (2014-02-14)

The court held that a commune breached the right to be heard and procedural fairness by testing general knowledge without notice during what had been announced as an interview, and quashed the refusal on that procedural ground. Applicants must be told in advance if their knowledge of Swiss and local conditions will be tested, so they can prepare.
Source

BGE 140 II 65 (2014-02-14)

The court held that what matters for respect for the legal order is the applicant's actual conduct, so concealing offences one has committed, even if not yet discovered, can justify annulment of a facilitated naturalisation. Applicants must disclose relevant conduct and later changes that bear on the conditions; concealment can lead to annulment.
Source

BGE 141 I 60 (Trimmis) (2015-03-11)

The court held that the authorities breached procedural requirements by not investigating the social contacts the applicant relied on, and noted that social assistance received more than ten years earlier was undisputedly no obstacle. Authorities must investigate the integration evidence an applicant offers rather than rely on gaps they did not try to fill.
Source

1D_4/2016 (Bern) (2017-05-04)

The court held that the Canton of Bern could refuse cantonal citizenship under Art. 7(3)(b) of its constitution because social assistance received in the previous ten years had not been fully repaid, including assistance received in other cantons, and that this was not disproportionate. In Bern, unrepaid social assistance from the last ten years can block naturalisation; the obstacle lapses after ten years. Decided under the law in force before 2018.
Source

BGE 146 I 83 (2019-11-13)

The court held that a Basel-Stadt rule presuming basic knowledge of Swiss and local conditions from school attendance in Switzerland did not violate the autonomy of the citizens' communes of Basel, Riehen and Bettingen. In Basel-Stadt, schooling in Switzerland may serve as proof of the required basic knowledge.
Source

BGE 146 I 49 (Arth) (2019-12-18)

The court held that integration requirements must be proportionate and non-discriminatory overall, that an overall assessment of all criteria is required, and that refusing a long-term resident over a minor gap in local knowledge rested on a clear imbalance. A refusal cannot hinge on a few missed local-knowledge questions when the applicant meets all other criteria well.
Source

BGE 148 I 271 (Thun) (2022-03-08)

The court held that requiring knowledge of the local language in a bilingual canton is permissible, but refusing to accept a sufficient Matura grade in German as proof of language skills was unconstitutional. A Swiss Matura with a sufficient grade in the local language can count as proof of language skills, even without a fide certificate.
Source

1D_5/2022 (2023-10-25)

The court held that refusing a Romanshorn applicant mainly because of a remaining debt of CHF 11,562.55 from advances on maintenance payments, while he met all other criteria, rested on a clear imbalance and was arbitrary, and directed the commune to grant communal citizenship. A modest outstanding debt being repaid in agreement with the creditor should not outweigh otherwise complete integration in an overall assessment.
Source

1D_8/2023 (2024-01-22)

The court held, in an Italian-language judgment, that the Lugano refusal for insufficient economic integration was upheld where the applicant had accumulated social assistance debt of CHF 405,846.47, as his discrimination complaint on health grounds was not substantiated. Long-term reliance on social assistance can justify refusal unless the applicant shows, with specifics, that it results from circumstances such as disability.
Source

1C_513/2023 (2024-03-13)

The court held that the annulment of a facilitated naturalisation was lawful where the divorce followed ten months after naturalisation, since separation within up to two years raises a presumption that no stable marriage existed that the applicant must rebut with concrete facts. Separation or divorce within about two years of facilitated naturalisation by marriage can lead to annulment unless convincing reasons are shown.
Source

1C_562/2023 (2024-07-09)

The court held that refusal of facilitated naturalisation was justified because the applicant, who bears the burden of proof in such an application, had not shown a stable marital union, having concealed children born outside the marriage. In an application for facilitated naturalisation, the applicant must prove an intact, stable marriage and must disclose relevant facts.
Source

1C_619/2024 (2025-05-02)

The court upheld the annulment of a facilitated naturalisation because the applicant had not rebutted the presumption, arising from the rapid breakdown of the marriage after naturalisation, that the marriage was not stable at the relevant time. A quick separation after naturalisation shifts the practical onus to the naturalised person to explain convincingly why the marriage was still intact.
Source

1C_406/2024 (2025-11-17)

The court upheld an annulment, noting that the 2014 BüG has no retroactive effect and that a short interval between naturalisation and separation creates a presumption the applicant failed to rebut with concrete evidence. Photographs alone, without dated evidence or statements from relatives or friends, may not be enough to rebut the presumption.
Source

More guides

Continue with another part of the guide

Back to the Swiss citizenship guide

Questions

Case law: common questions