Facts
The Federal Supreme Court dealt with complaints against information provided by health insurance companies in the run-up to the referendum on the "For a Public Health Insurance" initiative. The complainants alleged that the health insurance companies had violated the freedom of voting through their publications. The health insurance companies are organized as public limited companies under private law, but they perform public tasks in the field of social health insurance and are therefore bound by fundamental rights. The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the health insurance companies are generally entitled to take a position in the referendum campaign, as they are particularly affected by the referendum on the unified health insurance fund. However, they must observe the principles of objectivity, transparency and proportionality. With regard to the specific complaints, the Federal Supreme Court largely concluded that the complaints were to be dismissed for lack of substantiated justification. While individual contributions could be classified as borderline, they were overall recognizable as statements by the affected health insurance companies and did not appear to be capable of significantly influencing the referendum result.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court stated that the guarantee of political rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution (Art. 34 para. 2 Cst.) protects the free formation of will and the unadulterated casting of votes. This in particular gives rise to an obligation of the authorities to provide correct and restrained information in the run-up to votes.
Although the health insurance companies are organized under private law, they perform public tasks in the field of social health insurance and are therefore bound by fundamental rights. The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the health insurance companies are generally entitled…