City X. against M. and Municipality Y. for the assumption of support services

Facts

The 1978-born [M.] registered in Municipality [Y.] in January 2002 after leaving the Psychiatric Clinic and deregistering from City A. Since February 3, 2002, he has been staying with interruptions in various departments of the Psychiatric Services. The official guardianship, which had established a combined advisory board for [M.] by decision of June 14, 2004, registered him in Municipality X. on October 12, 2004. On November 9, 2004, this municipality issued the receipt of documents and certified the legal residence in X. since the move from [Y.] on October 11, 2004. Since June 2008, [M.] has been living in a supervised residential home in City Z.

By letter dated February 6, 2009, his advisor requested the City X. to assume outstanding invoices totaling around CHF 17,000. On February 26, 2009, the City X. did not enter into the request on the grounds that [M.] did not have a residence in Municipality X.

[M.] appealed against this to the Administrative Court of the Canton of Graubünden. This upheld the appeal by decision of November 17, 2009 and instructed the City X. to consider the request for support on the merits.

By appeal in public law matters, the City X. requests that the contested decision be overturned and that it be determined that [M.] never had a residence in the City X.

Considerations

The Federal Court dismisses the appeal.

Under the regime of the OG in force until the end of 2006, an administrative court appeal was inadmissible if the contested decision was not based on federal public law, but on cantonal law. As far as questions of support services to be provided under cantonal law were concerned, the municipalities therefore only had the constitutional appeal as a legal remedy.

Art. 89 para. 2 lit. c BGG entitles municipalities and public law corporations to appeal in public law matters if they allege a violation of guarantees granted to them by the cantonal or federal constitution. However, the City X. does not allege a violation of its autonomy and does not explain to what extent the cantonal law grants it a relatively significant decision-making freedom in…