Facts
The Federal Tax Administration (FTA) lodged a complaint against a judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Lucerne, which exempted the defendant [X.] from the military service exemption tax. [X.] had been recruited as an armored grenadier in 2005 but was discharged prematurely from military service due to knee problems. The SUVA military insurance recognized a liability for aggravation for the left knee problems, but not for the right-sided knee problems.
The Military, Civil Defense and Justice Department of the Canton of Lucerne exempted [X.] from the replacement obligation for the year 2005, but not for subsequent years. [X.] appealed against this decision, and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Lucerne overturned the appeal decision and exempted [X.] from the military service exemption tax.
The FTA lodged a complaint against this judgment and argued that [X.] could not be exempted from the replacement obligation, as he was not permanently unfit for service and had the possibility of performing voluntary civil defense service.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the complaint and came to the conclusion that the lower court had wrongly based its decision on the findings of the ECHR in the Glor case. The ECHR had found in its judgment that the distinction made by the Swiss authorities between exempt and non-exempt persons unfit for military service was discriminatory and violated Art. 14 in conjunction with Art. 8 ECHR.
However, the Federal Court found that the defendant, in contrast to the Glor case, had the possibility of performing voluntary civil defense service and thus fulfilling his service obligation. The defendant had not shown, however, that he had submitted a…