projetos
BGE 6 I 220 ΓÇó Renunciation of Swiss citizenship cannot be refused for prudential reasons
BGE 6 I 220Coletânea oficial do Tribunal Federal (BGE) / Volume I30 de dez. de 1879Granted
Röllin, a native of Menzingen who had emigrated to the United States and acquired U.S. citizenship, sought discharge from Swiss, cantonal, and municipal citizenship. Zug and Menzingen objected, arguing he was allegedly incapable of managing his affairs and that release would harm his own interests. The Federal Court held that the statutory conditions for renunciation were met: no Swiss domicile, legal capacity under the law of residence, and acquisition of foreign citizenship. It ruled that authorities may refuse discharge only for lack of legal prerequisites, not for paternalistic or prudential reasons, and upheld the complaint.
Art. 6 and 7 para. 2 of the Federal Act of 3 Heumonat 1876 on Swiss citizenship and renunciation thereof; conditions for refusal of discharge from Swiss citizenship. Once the statutory prerequisites are satisfied—absence of domicile in Switzerland, legal capacity under the law of the place of residence, and acquisition or assurance of foreign citizenship—the competent authorities must accept the renunciation and pronounce the discharge. Refusal is permissible only for absence of these legal conditions; considerations of the emigrant’s alleged best interests, possible later regret, or other protective/paternalistic motives are irrelevant. The right of emigration is thus guaranteed within the statutory limits (consid. 1-2).
Ueberzeugung dem Gesuchsteller die Entlassung aus dem Schwei zerbürgerrechte zum Nachtheile gereichen und daß er diesen Schritt bald bereuen werde, sowie darauf, daß derselbe, wenn auch viel leicht rechtlich handlungsfähig, doch psychologisch nicht handlungs fähig sei. Der Bürgerrath von Menzingen betont ebenfalls diese Mo mente, indem er beifügt, daß Leonz Röllin zwar allerdings nicht unter obrigkeitliche Vormundschaft gestellt worden sei, daß dies aber zweifellos geschehen wäre, wenn er nicht abwesend gewesen wäre. Das Bundesgericht zieht in Erwägung: