In its judgment, the Federal Supreme Court (the Court) declined to enter into an appeal by Psychiatrie Baselland (PBL) against a judgment of the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft concerning the continued care-related placement of a patient in its Clinic for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. The case concerned whether PBL had a protectable interest in challenging its suitability as an institution within the meaning of art. 426 para. 1 of the Swiss Civil Code, in particular in view of its service mandate and admission obligation under the Health Insurance Act (Bundesgesetz über die Krankenversicherung, KVG).

The patient, who suffers from severe autism and has the developmental level of a three-year-old child, had lost his place in a residential home. The Child and Adult Protection Authority (Kindes- und Erwachsenenschutzbehörde, KESB) had subsequently ordered his care-related placement in PBL due to his considerable need for assistance and an acute risk of harm to himself and others. PBL had requested that the placement be terminated and the patient transferred to a suitable institution, arguing that its organisational and staffing resources were insufficient to meet his needs. After the KESB had refused that request and later extended the placement until a suitable institution became available, the Cantonal Court dismissed PBL's appeal.

The Court held that PBL did not have a protectable interest in challenging the placement before the Federal Supreme Court. In particular, the interest of hypothetical other patients in having access to the psychiatric treatment place occupied by the patient constituted a third-party interest and could not establish standing. Nor did the additional costs incurred by PBL, including more than CHF 50’000.00 for external staff in August 2025, establish a protectable interest, as responsibility for the costs of a care-related placement was governed separately by cantonal law.

Most importantly, the Court held that PBL could not derive a protectable interest from its claim that it was not a suitable institution. PBL had an unrestricted service mandate covering all areas of basic psychiatric care under the cantonal hospital list and was the only institution in the canton covering the relevant service groups. The Court recalled that a service mandate not only constituted an authorisation under social insurance law but also imposed a public healthcare obligation to provide the inpatient services covered by the mandate. Moreover, under art. 41a KVG, hospitals on a cantonal hospital list are subject to an admission obligation within the limits of their service mandates and capacities. Against this regulatory background, PBL's interest in no longer admitting or treating the patient could not be regarded as protectable.

For more information, see here.