**A series of Swiss passports, 1915–2003.** Swiss National Museum

The Federal Constitution: helping ensure a fairer naturalisation process

The communes play a key role in accepting or rejecting applications for Swiss citizenship, which poses a risk of arbitrary or discriminatory decisions. The fundamental rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution serve as an important corrective.

Regula Argast

Prof. Regula Argast is Professor of History and History Didactics at the Bern University of Teacher Education and a lecturer at UniDistance Suisse (an officially recognised university institute providing distance learning). She is co-editor-in-chief of the periodical ‘Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Geschichte’ (SZG).

On a cold winter morning in 1963, Vittoria Zanetti (not her real name), a 20-year-old hoping to gain Swiss citizenship, appeared before the naturalisation committee of the local authorities in Basel. Vittoria herself was born and raised in Basel. Her father was originally from Italy, her mother from Basel. Like her father, the young woman now applying for citizenship held Italian nationality. Following her schooling in Basel, she had gone on to complete an apprenticeship as a dental assistant and had already been granted a naturalisation licence by the Confederation. Two initial interviews with the office in charge of citizenship matters, references from her employers, and information provided by friends and acquaintances had not revealed anything likely to prove detrimental to the young woman's application. In Basel's imposing Stadthaus, the seat of the local authorities, Vittoria Zanetti was now required to submit to questioning by the eleven ladies and gentlemen who made up the naturalisation committee. The committee members sat behind a table, apparently still deep in conversation among themselves. "For quite some length of time", the candidate was "not certain … whether or not the 'official' interview had actually started", as stated in the appeal against the decision to refuse Zanetti's application submitted by her lawyer the following year, first to the executive authority in Basel and then to the Federal Supreme Court. All of a sudden, a member of the committee posed the first question: Did Vittoria Zanetti "know why women were present here in this chamber today?" She assumed it had "something to do with women's right to vote," came the somewhat vague answer. As a matter of fact, the women of Basel had indeed been granted the right to vote and stand for election at the communal level on 7 December 1958.

Elisabeth Vischer-Alioth addressing the local authority, as its oldest serving member, in the parliament chamber on 5 December 1961. The women of Basel had acquired the right to vote and stand for election at communal level three years earlier. This photograph by Hans Bertolf appeared in the Basler National-Zeitung on 6 December 1961. — Elisabeth Vischer-Alioth addressing the local authority, as its oldest serving member, in the parliament chamber on 5 December 1961. The women of Basel had acquired the right to vote and stand for election at communal level three years earlier. This photograph by Hans Bertolf appeared in the *Basler National-Zeitung* on 6 December 1961. State Archives Basel-Stadt

The records show that the committee member who had put the question reacted "crossly" to Vittoria's answer. The lady in question also seemed "[to feel] the need to eat chocolates from a bag of sweets lying open in front of her". Another member of the committee wished to know how "one made one's way to Olten or Lucerne". Vittoria answered off the cuff: "By following the signposts." Now, one word quickly led to another. The committee member: "Do you go there on horseback?" Zanetti: "No, by car." The committee member again, this time in the local dialect: "What, you actually have a car?». The application is denied. In accordance with paragraph 2d of the Citizenship Act in force in Basel at that time, the official reason given for rejecting it was the candidate's "clearly objectionable conduct". Vittoria Zanetti was just one of around 20 cases in Basel-Stadt between 1950 and 1969 of foreign nationals appealing against the decision to refuse them citizenship. All were first- and second-generation immigrants, most from Germany and Italy. Under-45s had the right to a free naturalisation procedure after residing in the canton for 15 years.

The stately room where the second-generation immigrant was subjected to questioning by the naturalisation committee in 1963. Her application for citizenship was turned down. The City of Basel authorities would later justify their decision by stating that "above all, [the candidate] does not have significantly strong ties with her adoptive country". Council Chamber at Stadthaus Basel. State Archives Basel-Stadt

Paragraph 2d was a relic dating back to 1902. At that time, the federal government and cantons such as Basel, Zurich and Geneva were seeking to facilitate naturalisation. The aim was to encourage the civic integration of the rising numbers of foreigners now living in the country. A failed attempt was made around 1900 to introduce jus soli, which would have granted automatic citizenship to anyone born on Swiss soil, at the federal level. Nevertheless, the Canton of Basel-Stadt enacted a law on 19 June 1902 that extended the scope of the existing right to free naturalisation and introduced a right of appeal. As in the previous Act of 1879 , 'clearly objectionable conduct' was one of the criteria for exclusion. If a person lived their life in a way that was deemed to be blatantly 'indecent' or 'offensive', this posed a barrier to naturalisation. The interpretation of this particular paragraph had become ever broader since the end of the First World War when the idea of Überfremdung ‒ a term literally meaning 'over-foreignisation' that encapsulates the feeling of being overwhelmed by immigrants ‒ had also found its way into Basel-Stadt's policy on granting citizenship. Thus, in its response of 24 November 1964 to the Federal Supreme Court's ruling on the Zanetti case, the Canton's highest executive authority pointed out that "clearly objectionable conduct" as an obstacle to naturalisation was traditionally seen as a "general clause" in Basel. In its letter of 16 November 1964 to the Federal Supreme Court, the communal authority had likewise argued that "in accordance with decades of practice, the term 'clearly objectionable conduct' [was] subject to broad interpretation when being cited as the reason for rejecting an application". It applied to all applicants who were turned down "due to their political views, unpleasant character traits or lack of assimilation". Hence, on reviewing Vittoria Zanetti's application, it had come to the conclusion that she was "immature, possessed various character flaws and, above all, [did] not have significantly strong ties with her adoptive country".

The Canton of Basel¬-Stadt rejects the application of a young Italian woman in the 1960s wishing to acquire Swiss nationality. The candidate had been "born and raised in Basel, attended school and found employment here" and had "family, friends and acquaintances in Basel". But the local authorities did not consider this sufficiently "strict evidence" of her "assimilation". — The Canton of Basel-Stadt rejects the application of a young Italian woman in the 1960s wishing to acquire Swiss nationality. The candidate had been "born and raised in Basel, attended school and found employment here" and had "family, friends and acquaintances in Basel". But the local authorities did not consider this sufficiently "strict evidence" of her "assimilation". State Archives Basel-Stadt

The Federal Supreme Court threw out this argument and ruled in favour of Zanetti's appeal on 23 December 1964. Drawing on Article 4 of the Federal Constitution in force at the time – "All Swiss are equal before the law" – the Federal Supreme Court judges concluded that the authorities in this case had acted in an arbitrary manner. They found that "a perhaps mischievous answer to a somewhat unfortunate and unclear question, and a lack of knowledge regarding our institutions and the way we live" could not in any way be construed as 'clearly objectionable conduct'. The judges also went on to criticise the interpretation of Basel's Citizenship Act as "indefensible", stating that it could not be justified by "decades of practice". Vittoria Zanetti thus became a citizen of Basel. The legislative authorities in Basel revised the Citizenship Act that same year, deleting the 'clearly objectionable conduct' passage. However, a new discourse on Überfremdung was now taking place throughout Switzerland, mainly directed against immigrants from southern Italy. Against this backdrop, the new act of 19 March 1964 introduced an assimilation requirement for applicants. This restrictive naturalisation policy reached a peak in Switzerland in the 1960s and '70s.

Marc Virot, Head of Bern's Aliens Department, published a guide to naturalisation in 1968 in which he set out the virtues to be demonstrated by those wishing to acquire Swiss citizenship: "punctuality, exactitude, thoroughness, orderliness, perfection, honesty, cleanliness, composure, conscientiousness, good manners, discipline, social conscience, solidarity, sense of responsibility, social peace". Book cover; quote from p. 88. Regula Argast

But even in the 1990s, by which time the criterion of assimilation had gradually been replaced by that of integration, there were still shortcomings in the Swiss naturalisation procedure. The most famous case was probably that of the small town of Emmen, where the electorate repeatedly voted in secret ballots from 1999 to 2003 to reject applications for nationalisation submitted by people from the former Yugoslavia owing to their origin. Here too, the Federal Supreme Court ruled in favour of the appellants on 9 July 2003, once again citing the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 8 of the totally revised Federal Constitution of 18 April 1999. The practice of using referendums to decide the outcome of naturalisation applications has been considered inadmissible ever since.

The Confederation shall regulate the acquisition and loss of citizenship by birth, marriage or adoption

Federal Constitution of 1999, Article 38, paragraph 1

Happy you have rights day. 175 years of the Federal Constitution

17.03.2023 16.07.2023 / National museum Zurich

For the past 175 years, Switzerland has always had a democratic constitution. The legal document that underpins the federal state has a direct and indirect impact on day-to-day life. And because daily life has been constantly changing since 1848, the Federal Constitution has also been adapted to move with the times. To mark the 175th anniversary, the National Museum Zurich is exploring the history of the Swiss Federal Constitution, with a particular focus on fundamental rights. Visitors can take a playful look at the interplay between political rights, obligations and personal freedoms.

More of: 20th / 21st century Politics Federal Constitution

Further posts

The human right to be cold

Debjani Bhattacharyya 13.07.2023 The climate-induced melting of Switzerland’s glaciers is not just an environmental issue, the legal implications are also huge. National sovereignty, the cornerstone of fundamental constitutional rights, is suddenly on thin ice (pardon the pun). Climate change impacts a whole host of international human rights. This raises the question of how we in Switzerland can guarantee the next global generation’s right to be cold irrespective of national borders.

The Morteratsch Glacier tongue receded by 2,185 m from 1900 to 2010. It has since almost entirely disappeared.

Right to fair proceedings a latecomer to Switzerland

Numa Graa 20.04.2023 What rights does a person have in judicial proceedings? It was 2011 before Switzerland had a standard set of rules on how those proceedings are to be conducted. Previously, the Federal Supreme Court had derived procedural rights from the Federal Constitution and made them enforceable.

Marlène Belilos, seen here with her lawyer in front of the Federal Supreme Court in Lausanne on 27 April 1988.

Privacy – a contested fundamental right

Martin Lengwiler 13.04.2023 The Federal Constitution guarantees the right to privacy. Yet, time and again, this fundamental right has been restricted – in state security, the education system and taxation.

A scene from the consumer TV programme ‘Kassensturz’ on the insurers’ central database, 17.9.1984.