Facts
The appellant, a German national, acquired several plots of land in Switzerland in 2006 and 2007. She is married to an American citizen and the family is domiciled in the United States. The appellant filed her papers with the Commune of Gryon in April 2006 and obtained a CE/AELE residence permit of type B, but it was revoked in March 2009. The Land Commission found that the acquisition of the plots was not subject to the authorization regime, but the Cantonal Court annulled this decision and considered that the appellant was subject to the authorization regime.
The appellant filed a public law appeal against this decision, arguing that she was domiciled in Switzerland at the time of the acquisition of the plots and was therefore not subject to the authorization regime. The Federal Court rejected the appeal, considering that the appellant did not have a legally constituted and effective domicile in Switzerland.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the concept of legally constituted and effective domicile in Switzerland within the meaning of Art. 5 para. 1 let. a ANRA. It considered that this concept assumes a domicile in Switzerland, which must be legally constituted and effective. The Federal Court also examined the condition of the residence permit provided for in Art. 2 para. 2 ARENRO and considered that it is not indispensable when there is a right of residence.
The Federal Court then examined the circumstances of the case and considered that the appellant did not have a domicile in Switzerland at the time of the acquisition of the plots. It took into account the following elements: the appellant and her spouse had a principal residence in the United States, the appellant did not have an effective stay in Switzerland, the family had children who attended school in the United States, and the appellant had left Switzerland to give birth in the…