Questions raised about ‘symbolic’ parliamentary Credit Suisse vote

Confusion: members of the House of Representatives in Bern on Wednesday. © Keystone / Alessandro Della Valle

Swiss parliamentarians voted this week against the state’s financial role in the UBS takeover of Credit Suisse, which the government orchestrated last month using emergency powers. Some lawyers and politicians are now wondering if the decision should be binding.

The legal wrangle centres around the government’s hasty consultation of a six-member parliamentary finance delegation to approve the emergency deal on March 19, which led to the fusion of Switzerland’s two biggest banks.

The finance ministry has maintained that emergency law allows for such bypassing of full parliamentary approval.

When the House of Representatives voted against the deal earlier this week, it was thus widely interpreted as a symbolic slap on the wrist for government, without any concrete consequences – including by parliamentarians themselves.

+ Read more: Swiss parliament complains in vain

However, media have now been trying to figure out if the parliamentary “no” could have an impact. On Thursday, Zurich public law professor Andreas Kley told the 20 Minuten newspaper that following the vote, the government is no longer legally authorised to sign a CHF9 billion [guarantee] contract with UBS. On Sunday, the SonntagsBlick quoted (among others) Fribourg professor Andreas Stöckli, who agreed that the parliamentary decision was legally binding.

In question is a 2010 law – drafted in the wake of the emergency UBS bailout in 2008 – stipulating that urgent state credit needs not only the approval of the finance delegation, but also the “subsequent approval” of parliament as a whole.

Legal fine-print

The government has been sticking to its line: in Washington on Friday, Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter said again that the parliamentary decision would have “no consequence”.

Politicians are however calling for a clarifications. Thomas Aeschi of the People’s Party (Switzerland’s biggest), told SRF public radio on Saturday that the parliament should have the last word, especially on the CHF9 billion for UBS, since it is part of a contract not yet finalised.

Members of the People’s Party, the Social Democrats and the Greens – the three groups who voted “no” earlier this week – plan to raise the issue in parliamentary committees this week to clear up the legal confusion, SRF says.