💡 Update (Summer 2026)
The practices of immigration authorities and case law under Swiss immigration law are evolving rapidly and tend to be becoming stricter. This article continues to provide you with a solid legal foundation. However, to ensure that you are completely up to date, we have written a brand-new, comprehensive guide.
There you’ll find an overview of all the latest developments—from the escalating tiered system for cases involving the threat of passport revocation to the most recent court rulings on naturalization and family reunification.
Anyone with a criminal record is automatically rejected?
Naturalization with a criminal record is not possible? This is no longer true – even if the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) has proceeded in this way up to now. The Federal Supreme Court has now ruled that an overall assessment is required – not just a look at the criminal record.
The previous, strict practice
Shortly after we explained in an earlier article how the SEM’s rigid practice prevented naturalization even in cases of good integration, the Federal Supreme Court has now provided clarity in its ruling of 21 May 2025. The rule we described, according to which a conditional fine almost always led to a compulsory break, was overturned by the highest court. This means that the era of blanket rulings is – hopefully – over.
What is the new ruling about?
A Turkish citizen has lived in Switzerland since 1994, runs a restaurant with several employees, is socially active and linguistically integrated.
In 2020, he caused an accident due to microsleep – the result: a 40-day conditional fine and a CHF 900 fine. The SEM rejected his application for naturalization – with the sole reference to the Citizenship Handbook, which stipulates a waiting period of three years for such penalties. No further integration criteria were examined.
What does the Federal Supreme Court say?
In the landmark decision BGer 1C_350/2024 of May 21, 2025, the Federal Supreme Court sharply criticizes the schematic approach of the SEM and clearly states:
The Citizenship Handbook is not law: the handbook is purely an internal administrative directive and is not binding on the courts. The SEM must not simply hide behind it.
Overall assessment is mandatory, not optional: The authorities must carry out an overall assessment of all integration criteria. Focusing on a single negative point (the sentence) is not permitted unless it is extremely serious. A one-off sentence of 40 daily rates for driving while fatigued is not a significant criminal offence that precludes naturalization on its own.
A deficiency can be compensated for: The court confirms its established case law: a deficiency in one criterion (here: the conviction) can and must be compensated for by strengths in other areas (economic, social and linguistic integration) (so-called deficiency compensation).
Discretion was not used: The Ordinance on Citizenship Rights grants the SEM Art. 4 para. 3 BüV expressly grants discretionary powers for penalties of this kind. By stubbornly applying the waiting period from the handbook, the SEM did not exercise its discretion at all and thus acted in violation of federal law.
In this specific case, the matter was referred back to the SEM – with the clear instruction to fully assess the obviously good integration of the person concerned.
Our assessment
Naturalization is not a legal right – but neither is it an arbitrary decision. The previous practice of the SEM led to an automatism that did not do justice to the personality and circumstances of the applicant.
People who have proven themselves over the years should not be blocked across the board because of a single transgression they have already overcome. The ruling recognizes the life of the person concerned, who has lived in Switzerland for decades, runs a business, creates jobs and is firmly anchored in their community. With this ruling, the Federal Supreme Court provides clarity and strengthens the principle of proportionality: there is no place for automatisms in the naturalization process.
Conclusion
A criminal record is no longer the automatic knock-out criterion that it used to be – especially for one-off offenses in the lower criminal range. Those who are well integrated have a real chance of naturalization despite a conviction. In the case of serious or repeated offenses, however, the situation remains a major obstacle.
In practice, a transitional phase is now beginning, as the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) must adapt its internal directives to the ruling.
If in doubt, it may be advisable to at least wait until the end of the probationary period to maximize your chances.
It is crucial that a naturalization application is properly prepared and that a negative decision is subject to a comprehensive legal review.
FF-Law Your lawyers for public law and administrative law
Our lawyers in Winterthur specialize in administrative and migration law and provide you with comprehensive support in matters relating to naturalization and permits under immigration law.
We offer a detailed initial consultation (1 hour at CHF 330), on site or via video call. We clarify the next steps together.
FAQ on naturalization and criminal records
No, not automatically. Since a new Federal Supreme Court ruling in 2025, it has been clear that the authorities must carry out a comprehensive overall assessment. A single, non-serious conviction is not a knock-out criterion if the rest of the integration (economic, social, linguistic) is good.
The time factor is important, but is no longer the sole deciding factor. An older conviction weighs less heavily, especially if you have behaved impeccably since then. Instead of rigid waiting periods, which have been overturned by the Federal Supreme Court, what counts today is whether the misconduct is still significant in the overall picture of your integration.
A conditional fine is a criminal conviction and must be dealt with correctly in the application. However, it is not an automatic obstacle. It is important to classify it correctly as part of the overall assessment. As a rule, only pure administrative fines (e.g. for parking) that do not result in an entry in the criminal record are unproblematic.
Thanks to the new ruling, there is no longer a fixed date. However, the practice is currently in a transitional phase, as the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) must first adapt its manual and internal directives. The coming months will show how the Federal Supreme Court’s requirement of an “overall assessment” will be implemented in practice.
In principle, however, it is more important to have a strong and demonstrable integration in all other areas of life than to wait for new, rigid deadlines. As a rule of thumb, it is currently (as of August 2025) advisable to at least wait for the probationary period of the conviction if in doubt. A professional assessment of the situation is all the more important in this unclear phase in order to determine the ideal time.
This means that the authority must not only look at the criminal record entry. It must fairly assess all relevant aspects of your integration: Your work situation, language skills, social contacts, financial stability and general behavior. A weakness (the conviction) can be compensated for by proven strengths in other areas.
Yes, but to a lesser extent. The Federal Supreme Court has made it clear that the handbook is not binding for courts. The authorities may no longer apply it schematically in order to avoid examining individual cases. The individual situation always takes precedence over the general rules in the manual.
Matthias Fricker
Attorney at law and partner at Fricker and Füllemann Attorneys at Law
Studied at the University of St. Gallen, graduating with a Master in Law (M.A. HSG in Law) in 2012, registered in the Bar Register of the Canton of Zurich, member of the Zurich Bar Association.
Fabian Füllemann
Attorney at law and partner at Fricker and Füllemann Attorneys at Law
Studied at the Universities of St. Gallen and Zurich, graduating with a Master of Law UZH in 2013, registered with the Zurich Bar Registry, member of the Zurich Bar Association.
