Admissibility of Appeal in Public Law Matters against a Cantonal Decision in a Voting Rights Matter

Facts

The City of Zurich approved the draft budget for the current account and the investment account for the year 2007 on December 16, 2006, and rejected a motion not to approve the expenditures for the renovation of the Hardbrücke. The City Council of Zurich set the Hardbrücke renovation project and approved an object credit of 1.85 million francs for the construction of a combined bicycle and pedestrian path, as well as bound expenditures totaling 88.5 million francs for the renovation of the Hardbrücke. These financial decisions were not subject to a referendum.

Niklaus Scherr and co-appellants appealed the City Council's decisions to the District Council of Zurich with a voting rights appeal, which was rejected on July 5, 2007. An appeal against the District Council's decision was rejected by the Government Council of the Canton of Zurich with a decision of November 7, 2007, insofar as it was admissible.

With an application dated December 14, 2007, referred to as a voting rights complaint, the unsuccessful appellants in the cantonal proceedings request, among other things, that the Government Council's decision be annulled.

Considerations

The Federal Court has ruled that the cantons must establish a judicial authority as a court of appeal within the meaning of Art. 88 para. 2 sentence 1 FSCA. This obligation exists in both cantonal and communal voting rights matters.

The cantons are obliged under Art. 130 para. 3 FSCA to issue the necessary implementing provisions on the jurisdiction, organization, and procedure of the federal court's preceding instances within two years of the entry into force of the Federal Court Act. The Government Council of the Canton of Zurich has not made any reservations in § 5 VO FSCA with regard to the cantonal appeals decisions and voting rights matters that were not previously subject to administrative…