Facts

Parties: A.A., B.A. and C.A. (appellants) against State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) and Federal Administrative Court.

Facts:

  • A.A. and B.A., Israeli nationals, have lived in Switzerland since 2005 and obtained a settlement permit in 2016. They have three children, D.A., E.A. and C.A., where D.A. and E.A. have already acquired Swiss citizenship through naturalization.
  • On December 15, 2017, A.A., B.A. and C.A. applied for a federal naturalization permit with the migration office of the canton of Geneva.
  • The SEM refused naturalization due to connections to Russian-Ukrainian circles of organized crime and supported the brother of B.A., F., who is suspected of money laundering.
  • The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants.
  • The appellants filed an appeal in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court.

Main question: Is the appeal in public law matters against decisions on federal naturalization permits admissible? Was the right to be heard of the appellants violated?

Considerations

The appeal in public law matters against decisions on federal naturalization permits is admissible, as Art. 83 lit. b FSCA does not explicitly mention the federal naturalization permit and the historical and systematic interpretation of the provision does not suggest this. The federal naturalization permit is a challengeable final decision pursuant to Art. 90 FSCA, as the decision of the SEM is issued independently and the canton is bound by the federal decision.

The Federal Administrative Court violated the right to be heard of the appellants by relying on media contributions published on the Internet to which the appellants could not previously express themselves. Publicly accessible Internet sources that require…