Facts
German citizen X. took up a position in Switzerland on August 1, 2001. On September 25, 2002, he received an EC/EFTA residence permit from the Migration Office of the Canton of Aargau, which was originally valid until September 30, 2006, but was extended at X.'s request until September 30, 2007. Since August 1, 2006, X. has been registered with the Social Insurance Institution of the Canton of Aargau as self-employed.
On August 17, 2007, X. requested the Residents' Registration Office to extend his residence permit as well as those of his wife and son. He was instructed to submit the "Expiration Notification" form and the corresponding alien's identity cards for this purpose. X. refused to do so, as he and his family members were entitled to an "automatic" extension based on the Freedom of Movement Agreement.
After various correspondence, the Migration Office of the Canton of Aargau did not consider his request on April 23, 2008. The appeal filed against this was not followed up by the Legal Service of the Migration Office on September 25, 2008. The Appeals Court for Foreigners' Law of the Canton of Aargau ruled on July 9, 2009 that the Freedom of Movement Agreement left the member states a certain scope to shape the extension procedure.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, insofar as it enters into it. It finds that the Freedom of Movement Agreement does not exclude supplementary national procedural rules in connection with the extension of EC/EFTA residence permits or the corresponding documents. While permits in the EU have a declaratory rather than a constitutive effect, this does not exempt those entitled under the Freedom of Movement Agreement from reporting to the authorities and obtaining the required identity document or providing the necessary information for this purpose.
The Federal Supreme Court considers it permissible that the migration authorities have requested the appellants to submit an "Expiration Notification" and their alien's identity…