Facts
The Canton of St. Gallen filed a constitutional complaint against the enactment of the Gambling Machine Ordinance by the Federal Council. The Canton argued that the Federal Council had interfered with the cantonal jurisdiction in the area of gambling machines with this ordinance. The facts can be summarized as follows: - According to the previous practice of the Federal Department of Justice and Police, gambling machines with a skill phase that was insignificant for the overall course of the game were considered skill game machines. The cantons were responsible for their authorization. - With the new Gambling Machine Ordinance of April 22, 1998, the Federal Council changed this practice. Henceforth, only gambling machines in which the game-deciding phases are controlled by the player and the decision on win and loss clearly depends on skill would be considered skill game machines. - The Canton of St. Gallen had enacted a supplementary law to the cantonal law on gaming devices and gaming premises, which provided for a limited approval of gambling machines that had been homologated according to the old practice. This law could no longer be implemented due to the new federal ordinance.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the constitutional complaint of the Canton of St. Gallen. It came to the following conclusions: 1. The Federal Council was entitled to change the previous practice of homologation of gambling machines. An authority is not obliged to maintain a practice recognized as unlawful or inappropriate. As long as the change in practice is based on serious and factual reasons, it does not violate the principle of legal certainty or the principle of equality before the law. 2. The Canton of St. Gallen cannot derive a claim to maintain the previous homologation practice from the principle of federal loyalty. Federal loyalty obliges the Confederation and the cantons to mutual respect and consideration, but does not establish a legal obligation of the…