Facts
The case concerns X., manager of a massage parlor in Zurich, who employed two Hungarian prostitutes without a work permit. The facts took place on July 5 and 6, as well as October 26, 1998. X. was fined 3,000 Swiss francs for violating Article 23, paragraph 4, of the Federal Act on Foreigners (RSFNA) and Article 3, paragraph 3, of the same Act.
X. appealed this decision, arguing that he was not the employer of the prostitutes and that he had no control over their work. However, the court found that X. was responsible for the infrastructure of the parlor, advertising, and selecting the prostitutes. The prostitutes also had to pay him a portion of their income.
The court considered that X. had employed the prostitutes without a work permit and that he should therefore be considered their employer within the meaning of Article 23, paragraph 4, RSFNA.
Considerations
The court examined the question of whether the manager of a massage parlor who employs foreign women without a work permit can be considered their employer within the meaning of Article 23, paragraph 4, RSFNA. The court considered that the legislator intended to combat illegal work in Switzerland and that Article 23, paragraph 4, RSFNA should be interpreted broadly.
The court also examined the notion of 'employer' in the context of the RSFNA and considered that the manager of a massage parlor who selects prostitutes and provides them with infrastructure to work can be considered their employer. The court also emphasized…