Spreitenbach criminalizes right to petition

The petition system was designed so that each voluntary, active signature automatically triggered an email to the municipal administration as well as to the four municipal councillors: Mayor Markus Mötteli (Die Mitte), Deputy Mayor Doris Schmid-Hofer (FDP) as well as the independent councillors Adrian Mayr and Mike Heggli. And to Umwelt Arena Spreitenbach.

In four days, between 13 and 17 November 2025, 850 emails were received this way. No threats, no insults, no false statements. Only citizens who wanted to make their concerns heard by the responsible authorities.

The reaction from the municipality of Spreitenbach: criminal charges filed with the public prosecutor's office in Baden. The Umwelt Arena Spreitenbach remained silent. In March 2026, prosecutor Valentina Tuoni from the Ticino cantonal ministry issued a penalty order against the operator of wildbeimwild.com for alleged 'misuse of telecommunications equipment' under Art. 179septies of the Criminal Code. The penalty demanded was 30 daily rates of CHF 30 each (total CHF 900, suspended for 3 years), a fine of CHF 100, and court costs of CHF 300. An objection was filed within the deadline. The case will thus go to court and lead to a landmark decision on the admissibility of digital civic engagement in Switzerland.

What is remarkable is what the municipal council did not do: It neither blocked the sender address, nor set up a filter (both could have been done with a few clicks), nor did it contact wildbeimwild.com. Instead, it chose the path to the public prosecutor's office. This is not technical overwhelm. This is a political decision. When civic concerns are answered with criminal law, it sends an unmistakable message: criticism is unwelcome. This approach has a name. Experts call it 'SLAPP', Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation: lawsuits that do not aim to win in court, but to silence critics.

For comparison: This case stands in flagrant disproportion to Swiss legal practice: First, the Swiss platform Campax (campax.org) launched an email campaign in December 2025, in which around 1,180 individuals manually sent emails to selected members of the Council of States via a provided template, structurally identical to wildbeimwild.com's petition system. No criminal charges were filed against Campax or the senders.

Second, the Federal Assembly was flooded with around 500,000 emails from senders in the same month, described by the parliamentary administrative delegation as a 'cyber attack'. SVP councillor Werner Salzmann alone received approximately 1,700 such emails. Neither the Federal Assembly nor individual parliamentarians filed criminal charges. The municipality of Spreitenbach, however, filed criminal charges over 850 demonstrably authentic emails from real people who had voluntarily signed an animal welfare petition. Coherent application of law in accordance with Art. 8 of the Federal Constitution (equality before the law) and Art. 5 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution (proportionality) is not discernible under these circumstances.

Handling civic concerns is part of the core responsibility of elected politicians.

Municipal councillors are elected by the people to address the concerns of the population, not to file criminal charges against them. Anyone holding a political mandate has the duty to receive civic concerns, even uncomfortable ones, even bothersome ones. Markus Mötteli (Die Mitte), Doris Schmid-Hofer (FDP), Adrian Mayr and Mike Heggli instead used the instrument of criminal law against committed animal welfare advocates, against people who had done nothing other than exercise their constitutional right to petition. This is not governance. This is intimidation.

The decisive legal counterargument comes from two federal authorities. The Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM) is unambiguous: «Mass distribution of political or religious messages is fundamentally never considered spam.» Only commercial mailings could be classified as such. The State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) confirms this and refers to the Federal Act against Unfair Competition (UCA): Spam regulations only apply when emails pursue commercial purposes. On its website, SECO clarifies: «If your advertising is not suitable for influencing economic competition, you therefore do not need to comply with spam regulations.» According to SECO, besides political content, religious messages are also exempt.

An animal protection petition is not commercial advertising. It does not influence economic competition. The emails therefore simply do not fall under spam legislation according to the official assessments of the two responsible federal authorities. Criminal liability under Art. 179septies StGB cannot be based on an action that does not even violate civil spam prohibition. OFCOM and SECO clearly state: This was not spam.

Furthermore, Art. 179septies StGB explicitly requires that an act be committed «out of malice or mischief.» Each individual email was actively, voluntarily triggered by a real person with full knowledge of the purpose. Intent to cause harm is neither present nor demonstrable. The platform enabled democratic participation on an animal protection concern, nothing more and nothing less.

The right to petition is anchored in Art. 33 of the Federal Constitution, freedom of expression in Art. 16 FC. The automatic forwarding of petition signatures to responsible authorities is a recognized and widespread form of digital participation used by numerous civil society platforms worldwide. Criminalizing this practice would disproportionately restrict the right to petition in its digital exercise. Moreover, the Spreitenbach municipal administration could have filtered the emails at any time, redirected them to a separate folder, or blocked the sender with a few clicks. A criminal complaint is not a proportionate measure, as Art. 5 Para. 2 FC explicitly states.

When a municipality files criminal charges because citizen concerns become too bothersome, and an out-of-canton prosecutor's office subsequently issues a penalty order that OFCOM and SECO substantively refute, this is no coincidence and no minor offense. This is an attack on the foundation of digital democracy. The Spreitenbach case becomes a precedent: May a petition platform be criminalized in Switzerland because it is too effective?

The objection has been filed. The court will provide the answer. And one question remains: What does it say about the priorities, qualifications, and democratic understanding of a municipal council when it is unable to block an email sender but capable of filing criminal charges?

More on the background: Municipality of Spreitenbach files charges against animal protection platform · FAQ: Is recreational hunting necessary in Switzerland? · Template texts for hunting-critical initiatives · All dossiers