Spreitenbach criminalizes the right to petition

The petition system was designed so that every voluntary, active signature automatically triggered an email to the municipal administration and the four council members: Mayor Markus Mötteli (The Center), Deputy Mayor Doris Schmid-Hofer (FDP), and the independent council members Adrian Mayr and Mike Heggli. It also sent an email to the Umwelt Arena Spreitenbach (Spreitenbach Environmental Arena).

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

The municipality of Spreitenbach reacted by filing a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor's office in Baden. The Spreitenbach Environmental Arena remained silent. In March 2026, public prosecutor Valentina Tuoni of the Ministry of the Canton of Ticino issued a penal order against the operator of wildbeimwild.com for alleged "misuse of telecommunications equipment" pursuant to Art. 179septies of the Swiss Criminal Code. The order requested 30 daily fines of CHF 30 each (totaling CHF 900, suspended for three years), a fine of CHF 100, and court costs of CHF 300. An objection was filed within the prescribed time limit. The case will therefore go to court and will become a landmark decision regarding the admissibility of digital civic engagement in Switzerland.

What's remarkable is what the municipal council didn't do: They neither blocked the sender's address, nor did they set up a filter (both of which could have been done with just a few clicks), nor did they contact wildbeimwild.com. Instead, they went straight to the public prosecutor's office. This isn't a technical incompetence. This is a political decision. Anyone who responds to citizens' concerns with criminal law sends an unmistakable message: Criticism is unwelcome. This approach has a name. Experts refer to it as "SLAPP," Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation: lawsuits that don't aim to win in court, but rather to silence critics.

For comparison: The present case is blatantly disproportionate to Swiss legal practice: Firstly, in December 2025, the Swiss platform Campax (campax.org) launched an email campaign in which approximately 1,180 individuals manually sent emails to selected members of the Council of States using a provided template, structurally identical to the petition system of wildbeimwild.com. No criminal charges were filed against Campax or the senders.

Secondly, in the same month, the Federal Parliament building was flooded with approximately 500,000 emails from various senders, described by the Parliament's administrative delegation as a "cyberattack." SVP National Councillor Werner Salzmann alone received around 1,700 such emails. Neither the Federal Parliament building nor individual members of parliament filed criminal charges. The municipality of Spreitenbach, however, filed a criminal complaint regarding 850 demonstrably authentic emails from real people who had voluntarily signed an animal welfare petition. Under these circumstances, a coherent application of the law in accordance with Article 8 of the Federal Constitution (equality before the law) and Article 5 paragraph 2 of the Federal Constitution (proportionality) is not apparent.

Dealing with citizens' concerns is a core task of elected politicians.

Local councilors are elected by the people to address the concerns of the population, not to file criminal charges against them. Those holding political office have a duty to address citizens' concerns, even inconvenient or bothersome ones. Instead, Markus Mötteli (The Center), Doris Schmid-Hofer (FDP), Adrian Mayr, and Mike Heggli have used criminal law against dedicated animal rights activists—against people who have done nothing more than exercise their constitutional right to petition. This is not governing. This is intimidation.

The decisive legal counterargument comes from none other than two federal agencies. The Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM) is unequivocal: "The mass distribution of political or religious messages is never considered spam." Only advertising mail could be classified as such. The State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) confirms this and refers to the Federal Act against Unfair Competition (UWG): According to this act, spam regulations only apply if emails pursue a commercial purpose. On its website, SECO clarifies: "If your advertising is not likely to influence economic competition, you do not have to comply with spam regulations." According to SECO, religious messages are also exempt, in addition to political content.

An animal welfare petition is not commercial advertising. It does not influence economic competition. Therefore, according to the official assessments of the two responsible federal authorities, the emails simply do not fall under spam legislation. Criminal liability under Article 179septies of the Swiss Criminal Code cannot be based on an action that does not even violate the civil law prohibition of spam. The Federal Office of Communications (BAKOM) and the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) state clearly: This was not spam.

Furthermore, Article 179septies of the Swiss Criminal Code explicitly requires that an act be committed "maliciously or maliciously." Every single email was initiated by a real person actively, voluntarily, and with full knowledge of its purpose. Intent to cause harm is neither present nor demonstrable. The platform facilitated democratic participation in an animal welfare issue, nothing more and nothing less.

The right to petition is enshrined in Article 33 of the Federal Constitution, and freedom of expression in Article 16. The automatic forwarding of petition signatures to the competent 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, forwarded them to a separate folder, or blocked the sender with just a few clicks. Filing a criminal complaint is not a proportionate measure, as expressly stated in Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Federal Constitution.

When a municipality files a criminal complaint because its citizens' concerns are becoming too bothersome, and a public prosecutor's office from another canton subsequently issues a penal order that is substantively refuted by the Federal Office of Communications (BAKOM) and the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), then this is neither a coincidence nor a trivial offense. It is an attack on the foundations of digital democracy. The Spreitenbach case is setting a precedent: Can a petition platform in Switzerland be criminalized simply because it is too effective?

The objection has been filed. The court will deliver the answer. And one question remains: What does it say about the priorities, qualifications, and understanding of democracy of a local council member who is unable to block an email sender but is able to file a criminal complaint?

More background information: Municipality of Spreitenbach files charges against animal welfare platform · FAQ: Is recreational hunting necessary in Switzerland? ·Sample texts for motions critical of hunting · All dossiers