MPS justice initiatives rejected by the Grand Council

Context

TL;DR

• Two MPS initiatives rejected by the Grand Council
• Age of magistrates: proposal to lower it from 70 to 65
• First initiative rejected with 41 votes
• Second initiative rejected with 61 votes

Key facts

• Location → Bellinzona
• Proponents → Matteo Pronzini and Pino Sergi
• First proposal → retirement age from 70 to 65
• Vote on the first proposal → rejected with 41 votes
• Current authority for dismissals → Judicial Council
• Vote on the second proposal → rejected with 61 votes
• Opinions cited → Judicial Council and Court of Appeal

In Bellinzona, the Grand Council rejected two MPS-backed justice initiatives. The first concerned the retirement age of magistrates: Matteo Pronzini and Pino Sergi called for lowering it from 70 to 65.

The Justice and Rights Committee had consulted the Judicial Council. In a letter sent in May, the latter stated that it considered the current limit appropriate. In its opinion, it cited the experience acquired over the years, the absence of age-related problems and the risk of making the profession less attractive. The initiative was rejected with 41 votes.

The issue of dismissals

The second proposal sought to amend the law on judicial organization. The Grand Council would have had to decide on the dismissal of magistrates, upon a proposal by the Judicial Council. The stated aim was to apply the principle:

“Whoever elects must also dismiss”

The initiative apparently also arose following the case involving the dismissal of Siro Quadri and Francesca Verda Chiocchetti. The current framework remains one in which the Judicial Council may order dismissals.

According to the report of the Justice and Rights Committee, transferring the authority would have weakened disciplinary oversight and could have created problems regarding the right to appeal. The committee majority therefore called for leaving the law unchanged.

The Council of State also, based on the opinions of the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Council, called for maintaining the current system. The Government pointed to the risk of weakening disciplinary powers, the fact that the parliamentary decision could not be appealed before the Appeals Commission on the Judiciary, and the possible confusion between high-level parliamentary oversight and oversight of the judiciary. The second initiative was rejected with 61 votes.

Operational details

What remains unchanged after the double no

The result has a precise but limited effect: the framework described in the news report remains unchanged with regard to the two issues put to a parliamentary vote. For the first dossier, the reduction in magistrates' retirement age does not pass. For the second, the transfer to the Grand Council of the decision on dismissals does not pass.

The distinction matters because the two initiatives addressed different aspects. The first concerned the age limit for the profession. The second, instead, concerned the allocation of the disciplinary function and the relationship between parliamentary oversight and oversight of the judiciary.

Comparison between the proposal and the current system

In the second dossier, the operational issue raised by the commission and the Government was the soundness of disciplinary oversight. The amendment could have weakened the powers of the Judicial Council; moreover, according to the Council of State, a decision by Parliament would not have been appealable before the Appeals Commission on the Judiciary. Assigning a disciplinary function to the Grand Council would also have risked confusing high-level parliamentary oversight with oversight of the judiciary and compromising the separation of powers.

For those who live or work in Switzerland, the news does not indicate automatic effects on salaries, taxes, premiums or other items in the family budget. The comparison with the costo della vita in Svizzera must also be kept separate: the vote concerns two rules on the judiciary, not an amount or a benefit described in the source.

The practical point is therefore institutional. The reasons cited in support of maintaining the current system remain the reference point for the debate, while neither of the two proposed amendments becomes part of the arrangement described.

Recommended tools

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

Key points

How to follow the dossier without confusing the issues

The source does not indicate deadlines, forms or obligations for citizens and workers. There is therefore no personal administrative procedure to initiate after the vote. The concrete action consists in reading the two initiatives separately and always checking which competence is under discussion.

A four-step checklist

1. Start with the subject. If the text talks about retirement age and the change from 70 to 65 years, it concerns the first initiative. If it talks about removal, the law on the organization of the judiciary or the principle that whoever elects must also remove, it concerns the second.

2. Check the authority involved. For the first dossier, the Justice and Rights Committee requested an opinion from the Judicial Council. For the second, it is necessary to distinguish the current power to order removal from the proposal to entrust the decision to the Grand Council.

3. Separate the reasons. In the age dossier, record the experience acquired over the years, the absence of age-related problems and the risk of making the profession less attractive. In the removal dossier, instead check disciplinary oversight, the right of appeal and the separation of powers.

4. Note the outcome without turning a proposal into a rule. The first initiative was rejected by 41 votes, the second by 61. The Council of State had invited people to maintain the current system on the basis of the opinions of the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Council.

This method avoids attributing disciplinary competence to the Grand Council that the proposal did not introduce into the framework described. It also avoids interpreting the Government's opinion as new legislation: it was a position in favor of maintaining the current system.

Any personal tax checks remain separate from this dossier and can be carried out in the section dedicated to dichiarazione delle imposte. To check your income separately from the judicial matter, use calcolatore stipendio.

Source: tio.ch