Who is responsible for closing trails in Switzerland?

In Switzerland, the municipality is responsible for closing the trails on the basis of technical assessments provided by the canton. The canton provides data on natural hazards through hazard maps and specialized offices, but the final decision to close or prohibit access remains with the municipality. In the Bondo trial, the defence underlines this distinction to challenge the responsibility of cantonal officials.

What is the difference between technical evaluation and mandatory recommendation?

According to the defence in the trial, the Cantonal Forestry Office provides technical assessments without having a legal obligation to issue formal closure recommendations. The responsibility for translating these assessments into administrative actions rests with the municipality. This distinction is crucial because, if the office is not required to recommend, it is difficult to blame it for a lack of recommendation.

What does' residual risk 'mean in Swiss administrative law?

Residual risk is the element of randomness that remains even after a prudential and competent assessment. In the context of natural hazards, it means that even if an administration performs all the correct analyses, an imponderable catastrophic event can still occur. The defence argues that the directors cannot be held criminally liable for the materialisation of a residual risk.

How long has it been between the landslide and the trial?

The Cengalo Lace landslide occurred on August 23, 2017, resulting in the deaths of 8 hikers. The process started about 9 years later. It was initially scheduled for autumn 2024, but was postponed to 2026 due to incomplete evidence acquired by the Grison Prosecutor's Office.

How many defendants are there and what are they accused of?

There are 5 defendants, including two officers of the Forestry and Natural Hazards Office of the Canton of Graubünden. All are accused of multiple manslaughter, in relation to the failure to close the hiking trails in Val Bregaglia. The Prosecutor's Office claims that the failure to close contributed to the tragedy of 2017.

Bondo process, the defense criticizes the Prosecutor (cross-border guide)

Di Redazione Frontaliere Ticino · Published on 26 August 2026

Alpine hiking trail in Grisons canton with forested mountain landscape

Second day of the 2017 landslide trial. The defense criticizes the gaps in the evidence of the Public Prosecutor's Office and attributes to the Municipality the responsibility for the safety of the trails.

Context

In a nutshell

Second day of the trial on the Pizzo Cengalo landslide of August 23, 2017
The defence challenges the incomplete evidence of the Grison Prosecutor's Office
Attribution of the responsibility for the trails to the Municipality, not to the cantonal officials
Postponed process: it had to take place in autumn 2024

Key facts

What: Prosecution for multiple manslaughter related to the failure to close the trails
When: 23 August 2017 (date of landslide); second day in 2026
Where: Pizzo Cengalo, Val Bregaglia, Canton of Graubünden
Who: 5 defendants, including 2 officers of the Forestry and Natural Hazards Office
Casualties: 8 hikers (4 Germans, 2 Austrians, 2 Swiss)
Court: Maloja Regional Court

Nine years after the landslide that overwhelmed eight hikers in Val Bregaglia, the trial has entered the crucial phase of the defensive argument. On the second day of the trial, the lawyer of one of the two officials of the Forests and Natural Hazards Office of the Canton of Graubünden made severe criticisms of the work of the Graubünden Public Prosecutor's Office before the Maloja Regional Court.

The central point of the dispute concerns the incomplete construction of the investigation file. The Public Prosecutor's Office has acquired evidence that the Court considered to be deficient, so as to require an additional collection of documentation. The court would not have been authorized to request certain documents from the Federal Polytechnic of Zurich, the Municipality of Bregaglia and the Canton

Operational details

The boundaries of administrative liability

The issue raised by the defence touches on a fundamental node of the Swiss administrative structure: the difference between providing technical assessments and taking responsibility for administrative decisions. According to the defence's reasoning, the Cantonal Forestry Office may conduct in-depth analyses of natural hazards without this entailing an automatic obligation to issue closure orders. The translation of these assessments into concrete actions remains the responsibility of the local authority, the Municipality.

In many areas of Swiss administration, cantonal technical offices provide expertise and data, while municipalities and cantons take political-administrative decisions based on this expertise. If the prosecution has not clearly documented this dynamic in the indictment, the defense argues that it has a strong argument to contest the personal responsibility of the indicted officials. It is a matter not of negligence in making the assessments, but of legal authority in deciding on the basis of those assessments.

The concept of 'residual risk'

The defence introduced a fundamental element of Swiss administrative law: the concept of residual risk. According to the lawyer, a conviction would lead to the application of unrealistic criteria in the assessment of dangerous situations. If every possible catastrophic event were to be eliminated before manifesting, vast

Recommended tools

For an updated estimate, use the net salary calculator and the CHF-EUR exchange comparator.

Key points

How the safety of hiking trails in Switzerland works

The management of safety on hiking trails in Switzerland follows a codified and decentralised administrative structure. The cantons, through specialized offices (such as the Forestry and Natural Hazards Office of the Canton of Graubünden), conduct geological surveys and natural hazard assessments. These analyses feed a hazard map, a tool that identifies areas exposed to avalanches, landslides, rock falls and other natural phenomena.

The municipalities, on the basis of these maps and cantonal technical data, decide whether and when to close trails, prohibit access to sensitive areas or issue safety orders. This local responsibility is central: a municipality cannot completely delegate this task to the canton. It is an administrative attribution proper to the municipal level.

Complaints and criminal procedure in the event of an accident

If an accident occurs on a hiking trail in Switzerland, the law allows victims or their heirs to file administrative claims and criminal complaints against the allegedly responsible entities. Complaints are assessed by cantonal prosecutors, who determine whether there are elements of serious administrative error, negligence or wilful misconduct.

In the case of the Cengalo Lace landslide, the Grison Public Prosecutor's Office considered that there were sufficient elements to indict the five officials. However, the process is showing that the

Source: tio.ch

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is responsible for closing trails in Switzerland?: In Switzerland, the municipality is responsible for closing the trails on the basis of technical assessments provided by the canton. The canton provides data on natural hazards through hazard maps and specialized offices, but the final decision to close or prohibit access remains with the municipality. In the Bondo trial, the defence underlines this distinction to challenge the responsibility of cantonal officials.
What is the difference between technical evaluation and mandatory recommendation?: According to the defence in the trial, the Cantonal Forestry Office provides technical assessments without having a legal obligation to issue formal closure recommendations. The responsibility for translating these assessments into administrative actions rests with the municipality. This distinction is crucial because, if the office is not required to recommend, it is difficult to blame it for a lack of recommendation.
What does' residual risk 'mean in Swiss administrative law?: Residual risk is the element of randomness that remains even after a prudential and competent assessment. In the context of natural hazards, it means that even if an administration performs all the correct analyses, an imponderable catastrophic event can still occur. The defence argues that the directors cannot be held criminally liable for the materialisation of a residual risk.
How long has it been between the landslide and the trial?: The Cengalo Lace landslide occurred on August 23, 2017, resulting in the deaths of 8 hikers. The process started about 9 years later. It was initially scheduled for autumn 2024, but was postponed to 2026 due to incomplete evidence acquired by the Grison Prosecutor's Office.
How many defendants are there and what are they accused of?: There are 5 defendants, including two officers of the Forestry and Natural Hazards Office of the Canton of Graubünden. All are accused of multiple manslaughter, in relation to the failure to close the hiking trails in Val Bregaglia. The Prosecutor's Office claims that the failure to close contributed to the tragedy of 2017.