[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":282},["ShallowReactive",2],{"en-news-publikationen/gerichtliches-verbot-parkgebuehren-bundesgericht":3,"news-articles/en/news-publikationen/gerichtliches-verbot-parkgebuehren-bundesgericht/f68189a5-87b5-4ca8-8ad0-aca28a15aae6/3/1":167},{"data":4,"headers":145},{"story":5,"cv":142,"rels":143,"links":144},{"name":6,"created_at":7,"published_at":8,"updated_at":9,"id":10,"uuid":11,"content":12,"slug":133,"full_slug":134,"sort_by_date":32,"position":135,"tag_list":136,"is_startpage":132,"parent_id":137,"meta_data":32,"group_id":138,"first_published_at":139,"release_id":32,"lang":140,"path":32,"alternates":141,"default_full_slug":32,"translated_slugs":32},"Bundesgericht: Gerichtliches Verbot ist kein Instrument zur Durchsetzung von Parkgebühren","2026-09-26T09:47:31.074Z","2026-09-30T14:31:36.669Z","2026-09-30T14:31:36.687Z",224159543633810,"e6eccd86-2dfc-40db-86b9-bf787c33deb5",{"seo":13,"_uid":14,"date":15,"title":16,"content":17,"ctaLink":124,"ctaText":128,"component":129,"categories":130,"disablePrerender":132},"","cb34cac1-a0a0-4379-bf83-c2dc79122e2b","2026-09-26 00:00","Federal Supreme Court: Judicial prohibition cannot be used to enforce parking fees",[18,27,43,47,73,77,92,96],{"_uid":19,"link":20,"text":23,"htmlTag":24,"fontSize":25,"subtitle":13,"component":26,"linkLabel":13},"69d66a8d-eef4-4119-a289-62f1a630fa0f",{"id":13,"url":13,"linktype":21,"fieldtype":22,"cached_url":13},"story","multilink","Federal Supreme Court judgment 6B_998/2024 of 15 June 2026","h2","h3","AtomTextHeading",{"_uid":28,"html":29,"component":41,"outputStyle":42},"70d6182f-366e-4479-966b-d0370f4b5677",{"type":30,"attrs":31,"content":33},"doc",{"backgroundColor":32},null,[34],{"type":35,"attrs":36,"content":37},"paragraph",{"textAlign":32},[38],{"text":39,"type":40},"In judgment 6B_998/2024 of 15 June 2026, the Federal Supreme Court clarified the limits on the criminal enforcement of judicial prohibitions under Art. 258 of the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The case concerned a parking area at the City indoor swimming pool in Zurich. A motorist was accused of parking his vehicle there without paying the required parking fee. The premises were subject to a judicial prohibition that prohibited parking outside the stipulated conditions under threat of criminal sanctions. Both the District Court and the High Court of the Canton of Zurich acquitted the accused. The Zurich Senior Public Prosecutor's Office appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.","text","AtomTextRichtext","lead",{"_uid":44,"link":45,"text":46,"htmlTag":24,"fontSize":25,"subtitle":13,"component":26,"linkLabel":13},"c1553c93-588e-4d0d-9cc0-8a73658c46b6",{"id":13,"url":13,"linktype":21,"fieldtype":22,"cached_url":13},"Decision of the Federal Supreme Court",{"_uid":48,"html":49,"component":41,"outputStyle":72},"e278096f-c871-4252-bed9-48baf74f4e5e",{"type":30,"attrs":50,"content":51},{"backgroundColor":32},[52,57,62,67],{"type":35,"attrs":53,"content":54},{"textAlign":32},[55],{"text":56,"type":40},"The Federal Supreme Court upheld the acquittal. It first held that a judicial prohibition under Art. 258 CPC constitutes a specific form of possessory protection backed by criminal sanctions. What is protected is the actual control exercised over real property. Such a prohibition may therefore prohibit, in particular, interferences with possession such as unauthorised entry, parking or other disturbances. By contrast, rules governing the use of property that go beyond the protection of possession are not covered.",{"type":35,"attrs":58,"content":59},{"textAlign":32},[60],{"text":61,"type":40},"Of particular significance, the Federal Supreme Court did not rule out judicial prohibitions on traffic areas as a matter of principle. For road traffic law purposes, the parking area at the indoor swimming pool qualifies as a public road because it is accessible to an indeterminate group of swimming-pool visitors. At the same time, it forms part of the City of Zurich's administrative assets. This does not, as a matter of principle, prevent the owner from protecting its possession under civil law by means of a judicial prohibition. Road traffic law and civil-law possessory protection pursue different purposes in this respect and may apply concurrently.",{"type":35,"attrs":63,"content":64},{"textAlign":32},[65],{"text":66,"type":40},"The decisive limitation, however, lies in the content of the prohibition. Art. 258 CPC is not intended to enforce monetary claims by means of criminal sanctions. The mere failure to pay a parking fee does not interfere with the owner's actual control over the property. An interference with possession may arise, for example, where a vehicle is parked without authorisation or remains parked beyond the permitted period. The non-payment of the fee as such, however, does not constitute an interference with possession.",{"type":35,"attrs":68,"content":69},{"textAlign":32},[70],{"text":71,"type":40},"Accordingly, the Federal Supreme Court held that parking fees cannot be secured by criminal sanctions simply by making payment a condition of a judicial prohibition. Where a fee is to be enforced, other instruments are available, such as technical access restrictions or civil-law claims. The appeal by the Zurich Senior Public Prosecutor's Office was therefore dismissed.","default",{"_uid":74,"link":75,"text":76,"htmlTag":24,"fontSize":25,"subtitle":13,"component":26,"linkLabel":13},"97656de0-6fc5-42fc-b210-b4bc6b70c2c5",{"id":13,"url":13,"linktype":21,"fieldtype":22,"cached_url":13},"Practical significance",{"_uid":78,"html":79,"component":41,"outputStyle":72},"5b56149c-9e05-4e92-9d3a-b412bda8601e",{"type":30,"attrs":80,"content":81},{"backgroundColor":32},[82,87],{"type":35,"attrs":83,"content":84},{"textAlign":32},[85],{"text":86,"type":40},"The decision is significant beyond the specific parking dispute. It makes clear that Art. 258 CPC serves exclusively to protect possession and may not be used to give criminal-law backing to contractual or other payment obligations.",{"type":35,"attrs":88,"content":89},{"textAlign":32},[90],{"text":91,"type":40},"For owners and operators of car parks, commercial premises and other publicly accessible properties, this means that judicial prohibitions must carefully distinguish between an actual interference with possession and mere conditions of use. Criminal sanctions may be imposed only for conduct that actually interferes with the protected possession. A breach of fee rules or other conditions of use is not sufficient.",{"_uid":93,"link":94,"text":95,"htmlTag":24,"fontSize":25,"subtitle":13,"component":26,"linkLabel":13},"2eb87157-0667-48e6-85e5-8ef9a343b27a",{"id":13,"url":13,"linktype":21,"fieldtype":22,"cached_url":13},"Commentary",{"_uid":97,"html":98,"component":41,"outputStyle":72},"91437bde-3fe3-435f-b8e5-6f5d1038e8d0",{"type":30,"attrs":99,"content":100},{"backgroundColor":32},[101,106,111,116],{"type":35,"attrs":102,"content":103},{"textAlign":32},[104],{"text":105,"type":40},"The decision is persuasive in particular because it draws a clear distinction between possessory protection and the enforcement of monetary claims. The threat of criminal sanctions attached to a judicial prohibition must not be used to lend additional force to private-law or public-law payment obligations. Otherwise, an instrument designed to protect possession would effectively be converted into a debt-collection mechanism backed by criminal sanctions.",{"type":35,"attrs":107,"content":108},{"textAlign":32},[109],{"text":110,"type":40},"This is likely to be relevant to the private management of parking facilities by specialised providers. Their business models are in some cases based on charging so-called administrative or inconvenience fees for breaches of parking rules and reinforcing those claims by referring to the criminal sanctions that may follow from a breach of a judicial prohibition. The present decision limits that approach where the objection is not to unauthorised parking as such, but merely to the non-payment of a parking fee.",{"type":35,"attrs":112,"content":113},{"textAlign":32},[114],{"text":115,"type":40},"At the same time, the Federal Supreme Court makes clear that the classification of a traffic area as a public road within the meaning of the Swiss Road Traffic Act does not, in itself, preclude civil-law possessory protection. What remains decisive is the specific conduct that is prohibited and the legal interest that the prohibition is intended to protect. This distinction is likely to be of considerable practical importance for the drafting and enforcement of judicial prohibitions concerning car parks and other publicly accessible areas.",{"type":35,"attrs":117,"content":118},{"textAlign":32},[119],{"text":120,"type":40,"marks":121},"Source: Federal Supreme Court, judgment 6B_998/2024 of 15 June 2026.",[122],{"type":123},"italic",{"id":125,"url":13,"linktype":21,"fieldtype":22,"cached_url":126,"prep":127},"aee76d71-e301-4e62-a833-43a3b137d12e","/en/kontakt",true,"Questions on this topic","PageNews",[131],"f68189a5-87b5-4ca8-8ad0-aca28a15aae6",false,"gerichtliches-verbot-parkgebuehren-bundesgericht","en/news-publikationen/gerichtliches-verbot-parkgebuehren-bundesgericht",-30,[],223860986136810,"059055c9-f327-453c-8852-f1b37af6f64f","2026-09-26T09:54:01.338Z","en",[],1791451493,[],[],{"cache-control":146,"connection":147,"content-encoding":148,"content-type":149,"date":150,"etag":151,"referrer-policy":152,"sb-be-version":153,"server":154,"transfer-encoding":155,"vary":156,"via":157,"x-amz-cf-id":158,"x-amz-cf-pop":159,"x-cache":160,"x-content-type-options":161,"x-frame-options":162,"x-permitted-cross-domain-policies":163,"x-request-id":164,"x-runtime":165,"x-xss-protection":166},"max-age=0, public, s-maxage=604800, stale-if-error=3600","keep-alive","gzip","application/json; charset=utf-8","Thu, 08 Oct 2026 09:27:06 GMT","W/\"01ee6f81588d992a772b91b754d8bd5b\"","strict-origin-when-cross-origin","5.980.1","nginx/1.29.1","chunked","Origin,Accept-Encoding","1.1 8d260504510dc66e11b489b69c10cb8e.cloudfront.net (CloudFront)","Jw17RcmynA9zQtszEa1hH8TsI9Pw25S2Wn-UGJt6DHXkerjjR85bJw==","IAD55-P6","Miss from cloudfront","nosniff","SAMEORIGIN","none","54bb5b33-4229-47c7-a4d3-6658426ad3c1","0.028290","0",{"data":168,"headers":272,"perPage":280,"total":281},{"stories":169,"cv":142,"rels":270,"links":271},[170],{"name":171,"created_at":172,"published_at":173,"updated_at":174,"id":175,"uuid":176,"content":177,"slug":263,"full_slug":264,"sort_by_date":32,"position":265,"tag_list":266,"is_startpage":132,"parent_id":137,"meta_data":32,"group_id":267,"first_published_at":268,"release_id":32,"lang":140,"path":32,"alternates":269,"default_full_slug":32,"translated_slugs":32},"Bundesgericht stärkt Akteneinsichtsrecht bei internationaler Steueramtshilfe","2026-09-26T09:48:58.572Z","2026-09-30T14:31:36.672Z","2026-09-30T14:31:36.690Z",224159902025620,"05ad4e99-19a1-4b58-b01a-c7ca054a3568",{"seo":13,"_uid":178,"date":15,"title":179,"content":180,"ctaLink":261,"ctaText":128,"component":129,"categories":262,"disablePrerender":132},"e03c2bd7-4ad9-4f3d-b4f5-e06393faf24c","Federal Supreme Court strengthens right of access to the case file in international tax administrative assistance proceedings",[181,185,195,198,218,221,231,234],{"_uid":182,"link":183,"text":184,"htmlTag":24,"fontSize":25,"subtitle":13,"component":26,"linkLabel":13},"24c30167-f4ef-4f1a-b0a8-1232346d46c2",{"id":13,"url":13,"linktype":21,"fieldtype":22,"cached_url":13},"Federal Supreme Court judgment 2C_157/2024 of 18 June 2026",{"_uid":186,"html":187,"component":41,"outputStyle":42},"da7c27b6-6580-4577-bca6-16de835125c8",{"type":30,"attrs":188,"content":189},{"backgroundColor":32},[190],{"type":35,"attrs":191,"content":192},{"textAlign":32},[193],{"text":194,"type":40},"In judgment 2C_157/2024 of 18 June 2026, the Federal Supreme Court considered the scope of the right to inspect the case file in international administrative assistance proceedings in tax matters. In the case at hand, the German tax authority had requested administrative assistance from Switzerland. The Swiss Federal Tax Administration (FTA) sought to withhold from the person concerned the contact details of the requesting authority as well as the names and contact details of its employees. The Federal Administrative Court, by contrast, ordered access to the complete and unredacted case file.",{"_uid":196,"link":197,"text":46,"htmlTag":24,"fontSize":25,"subtitle":13,"component":26,"linkLabel":13},"02c4b95b-d400-4281-b108-9ad2c4fc287a",{"id":13,"url":13,"linktype":21,"fieldtype":22,"cached_url":13},{"_uid":199,"html":200,"component":41,"outputStyle":72},"a253aed3-4822-40f4-9ebc-9f6c93b53383",{"type":30,"attrs":201,"content":202},{"backgroundColor":32},[203,208,213],{"type":35,"attrs":204,"content":205},{"textAlign":32},[206],{"text":207,"type":40},"The Federal Supreme Court upheld that decision and confirmed its existing case law: the double taxation agreement between Switzerland and Germany does not impose a general obligation to keep such information confidential from the person concerned by a request for administrative assistance. The right to be heard under Art. 29(2) of the Federal Constitution generally includes the right to inspect all documents created or obtained for the purposes of the proceedings, irrespective of whether the authority itself considers the information in question relevant to the decision.",{"type":35,"attrs":209,"content":210},{"textAlign":32},[211],{"text":212,"type":40},"The Federal Supreme Court attached particular importance to the relationship between international standards and constitutional procedural rights. While it generally takes account of the current version of the Commentary on the OECD Model Tax Convention when interpreting double taxation agreements, that Commentary cannot justify restrictions that have no sufficient basis in the treaty itself or that are incompatible with overriding constitutional rights.",{"type":35,"attrs":214,"content":215},{"textAlign":32},[216],{"text":217,"type":40},"Restrictions on access to the case file remain possible, but require specific interests worthy of protection in the individual case. This might be conceivable, for example, where employees of the requesting authority face a concrete threat or where disclosure would in fact impair the effective conduct of the administrative assistance proceedings. A general and context-independent redaction, by contrast, does not satisfy these requirements.",{"_uid":219,"link":220,"text":76,"htmlTag":24,"fontSize":25,"subtitle":13,"component":26,"linkLabel":13},"c786f53c-0a1e-4551-900a-6c6ae13c3064",{"id":13,"url":13,"linktype":21,"fieldtype":22,"cached_url":13},{"_uid":222,"html":223,"component":41,"outputStyle":72},"dc223068-a130-4a1f-a20c-d6d175dde2d3",{"type":30,"attrs":224,"content":225},{"backgroundColor":32},[226],{"type":35,"attrs":227,"content":228},{"textAlign":32},[229],{"text":230,"type":40},"The decision strengthens the procedural rights of persons affected by requests for international administrative assistance in tax matters. Authorities cannot restrict access to the case file solely on the basis of general confidentiality interests or international administrative practice. Any restriction of the right to inspect the case file must instead have a basis in statute or treaty, be justified in the specific case and be proportionate.",{"_uid":232,"link":233,"text":95,"htmlTag":24,"fontSize":25,"subtitle":13,"component":26,"linkLabel":13},"4015e9f9-bc6a-4ebe-8fe8-87f935f0feac",{"id":13,"url":13,"linktype":21,"fieldtype":22,"cached_url":13},{"_uid":235,"html":236,"component":41,"outputStyle":72},"30843f85-50d4-46c1-9640-8df938ddf762",{"type":30,"attrs":237,"content":238},{"backgroundColor":32},[239,244,249,254],{"type":35,"attrs":240,"content":241},{"textAlign":32},[242],{"text":243,"type":40},"By confirming its existing case law, the Federal Supreme Court makes clear that the scope of the rights to be heard and to inspect the case file in international administrative assistance proceedings is governed by the applicable treaty provisions. The Commentary on the OECD Model Tax Convention may assist in interpreting those provisions, but it cannot amend them or create restrictions on procedural rights for which the treaty itself provides no basis.",{"type":35,"attrs":245,"content":246},{"textAlign":32},[247],{"text":248,"type":40},"It is particularly welcome that the Federal Supreme Court also rejects the blanket withholding of information concerning the requesting authority and the persons involved in the request for administrative assistance. Such information may be material to the person concerned. In particular, it enables that person to verify whether the domestic procedures and rules on jurisdiction and competence in the requesting state have been complied with.",{"type":35,"attrs":250,"content":251},{"textAlign":32},[252],{"text":253,"type":40},"This may be of particular practical importance where there are indications that administrative assistance mechanisms are not being used exclusively for their intended purposes, but may instead serve to investigate persons or assets more broadly. A comprehensive right to inspect the case file provides an important procedural safeguard in such circumstances.",{"type":35,"attrs":255,"content":256},{"textAlign":32},[257],{"text":258,"type":40,"marks":259},"Source: Federal Supreme Court, judgment 2C_157/2024 of 18 June 2026.",[260],{"type":123},{"id":125,"url":13,"linktype":21,"fieldtype":22,"cached_url":126,"prep":127},[131],"steueramtshilfe-bundesgericht-akteneinsichtsrecht","en/news-publikationen/steueramtshilfe-bundesgericht-akteneinsichtsrecht",-50,[],"9ada3806-bcff-4f7f-9df6-870fb4193cbe","2026-09-26T09:51:58.845Z",[],[],[],{"cache-control":146,"connection":147,"content-encoding":148,"content-type":149,"date":273,"etag":274,"per-page":275,"referrer-policy":152,"sb-be-version":153,"server":154,"total":276,"transfer-encoding":155,"vary":156,"via":157,"x-amz-cf-id":277,"x-amz-cf-pop":159,"x-cache":160,"x-content-type-options":161,"x-frame-options":162,"x-permitted-cross-domain-policies":163,"x-request-id":278,"x-runtime":279,"x-xss-protection":166},"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 09:27:07 GMT","W/\"95e5a86846f1d51afa94a5d5515767dd\"","3","1","sg2Q123rTi0pWHrfRIThq-AMv12UddtyKDTUeVJiIEuaXlgp5gdwbg==","93a8c319-8e18-4fe7-b67a-54f936d55a1b","0.027835",3,1,1791451626906]