The Administrative Court of the canton of Aargau has overturned a municipal decision that denied citizenship to a 23-year-old Eritrean-born woman on the grounds of a juvenile conviction for egg-throwing and ringing multiple doorbells. In a ruling published on Monday, 9 February, the court held that a single warning issued when the applicant was fifteen could not be interpreted as proof of poor integration or a propensity to re-offend.(swissinfo.ch)
Naturalisation applications in Switzerland are processed at three levels—communal, cantonal and federal—and criteria vary widely from one locality to another. Critics have long argued that some communes apply moral standards that go well beyond the federal requirement to respect public order. The Aargau judgment is the first to label such practice “arbitrary” and explicitly references Article 14 of the Federal Constitution, which protects against disproportionate administrative measures.
For individuals navigating Switzerland’s complex immigration landscape, VisaHQ offers user-friendly online tools and personalised support for securing the visas and residence permits that often precede a naturalisation bid. Their Switzerland portal (https://www.visahq.com/switzerland/) provides step-by-step guidance, document checklists and application tracking, helping applicants avoid procedural missteps while they build the years of lawful residence required for citizenship.
![Aargau Court Says Minor Pranks No Obstacle to Swiss Passport in Landmark Naturalisation Ruling]()
The court reminded naturalisation authorities that they must weigh the severity, context and recency of any offence and assess whether it genuinely predicts future misconduct. Because the egg-throwing incident was an isolated teenage prank and the applicant has since completed vocational training, paid taxes and speaks fluent Swiss German, the judges found “no legitimate concern” about her civic behaviour.
Legal scholars say the verdict could narrow the discretionary power of local naturalisation committees nationwide and encourage more rejected applicants to appeal. Employers sponsoring long-term employees for citizenship may also find the path smoother, as HR departments can cite the ruling to refute rejections based on minor misdemeanours.
The municipality has 30 days to appeal to Switzerland’s Federal Supreme Court; however, observers note that cantons rarely escalate cases that lack broad legal significance, suggesting the decision is likely to stand.
Naturalisation applications in Switzerland are processed at three levels—communal, cantonal and federal—and criteria vary widely from one locality to another. Critics have long argued that some communes apply moral standards that go well beyond the federal requirement to respect public order. The Aargau judgment is the first to label such practice “arbitrary” and explicitly references Article 14 of the Federal Constitution, which protects against disproportionate administrative measures.
For individuals navigating Switzerland’s complex immigration landscape, VisaHQ offers user-friendly online tools and personalised support for securing the visas and residence permits that often precede a naturalisation bid. Their Switzerland portal (https://www.visahq.com/switzerland/) provides step-by-step guidance, document checklists and application tracking, helping applicants avoid procedural missteps while they build the years of lawful residence required for citizenship.
The court reminded naturalisation authorities that they must weigh the severity, context and recency of any offence and assess whether it genuinely predicts future misconduct. Because the egg-throwing incident was an isolated teenage prank and the applicant has since completed vocational training, paid taxes and speaks fluent Swiss German, the judges found “no legitimate concern” about her civic behaviour.
Legal scholars say the verdict could narrow the discretionary power of local naturalisation committees nationwide and encourage more rejected applicants to appeal. Employers sponsoring long-term employees for citizenship may also find the path smoother, as HR departments can cite the ruling to refute rejections based on minor misdemeanours.
The municipality has 30 days to appeal to Switzerland’s Federal Supreme Court; however, observers note that cantons rarely escalate cases that lack broad legal significance, suggesting the decision is likely to stand.
