The case

Thierry Burkhart, member of the Council of States, asked the Federal Council in an interpellation (11.03.2024) whether the transfer of responsibility for the stationary sirens (5,000) from the cantons to the Confederation might prove to be effective.

Source: 24.3124 INTERPELLATION

The commentary

Among other things, Burkhart found time to wonder whether the Federal Council was still convinced that it is the right strategic decision to transfer the tasks of planning, implementing, maintaining and repairing the approximately 5,000 stationary sirens dotted over the whole of Switzerland to the Federal Office for Civil Protection (FOCP), and if so, why. The Federal Council’s statement (26.06.2024) is detailed. – And it’s money that makes the whirl (“world” would be too big a concept in this context) go round.

If we had world enough and time (if you don’t, you may want to skip this paragraph but for the last sentence) you could learn that to date, the federal government has reimbursed the cantons with CHF 400 per siren per year. As part of the consultation process for the revision of the Federal Act on Civil Protection and Civil Defence (BZG), an increase in the lump sum to CHF 450 was planned. In contrast, the cantons demanded a lump sum of at least CHF 800 per siren per year. This would have exceeded the cost framework of CHF 3 million approved by parliament during the last total revision of the BZG by around CHF 1 million. The flat rate of CHF 600 per siren per year is a compromise reached within the framework of the transitional period, but this does not prejudge the future solution. Article 60 of the Civil Protection Ordinance stipulates that landowners must tolerate stationary sirens on their property and that they are entitled to compensation. The use of publicly owned properties is not compensated. To cut a long story short: A regulation in the BZG is not required in this instance.

The Federal Council usually responds to interpellations in writing by the following session (Art. 125 para. 2 ParlA) and the author of the interpellation can declare whether he or she is fully, partially or not at all satisfied with the answer and request a discussion (Art. 125 para. 2 ParlA; Art. 28 para. 4 GRN; Art. 24 para. 3 GRS). In practice, however, such discussions only take place in the Council of States– which that is a wise thing to do in this heat and in this case, as we do not have world enough and time.

This publication has been prepared solely for information purposes and is does not constitute a recommendation, a solicitation, or an offer. The information on which this publication is based has been obtained from sources that we believe to be reliable and in good faith, but we have not independently verified such information and no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to its accuracy. All expressions of opinion are made as of the date of publication and may be subject to change without notice. k-flash and all related affiliates accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for any consequential loss of any kind arising out of the use of this publication or any part of its contents. The use of this publication should not be regarded as a substitute for the exercise by the recipient of his or her own judgment. This publication is not directed to any person in any jurisdictions that prohibit such publication.