The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
ATA/285/1996•Art. 9 para. 2 LHFM compatible with federal law and economic freedom
ATA/285/1996Court of Justice / Administrative ChamberMay 21, 1996Confirmed
Extracted by Omnilex
The court held that Art. 9 para. 2 LHFM is not contrary to the principle of the supremacy of federal law, nor to freedom of trade and industry or equality of treatment. The provision was therefore upheld.
LHFM art. 9 al. 2; compatibility with the supremacy of federal law, freedom of trade and industry and equality of treatment. A cantonal provision regulating shop opening hours is not unconstitutional merely because it restricts commercial activity; it remains admissible where it does not encroach upon an area exhaustively governed by federal law and where the restriction does not infringe the constitutional guarantees invoked. The court held that Art. 9 para. 2 LHFM is neither incompatible with the derogatory force of federal law nor with economic freedom or equality of treatment.
Descripteurs
LIBERTE DU COMMERCE ET DE L'INDUSTRIE; MAGASIN; HEURE D'OUVERTURE; EGALITE DE TRAITEMENT; FORCE DEROGATOIRE DU DROIT FEDERAL; DROIT FEDERAL; EP
Normes
LHFM.9 al.2
Résumé
L'art.9 al.2 LHFM n'est contraire ni au principe de la force dérogatoire du droit fédéral ni à ceux de la liberté du commerce et de l'industrie et de l'égalité de traitement.
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether Art. 9 para. 2 LHFM violates the supremacy of federal law.
It does not violate the supremacy of federal law.
The provision is not found to conflict with federal law.
Whether Art. 9 para. 2 LHFM violates freedom of trade and industry and equal treatment.
It does not violate freedom of trade and industry or equal treatment.
The provision is compatible with both constitutional guarantees.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.