Author
Immigration detention in Switzerland is applied for the purpose of removal, as no general detention of asylum seekers is foreseen. The administrative detention of asylum seekers during the asylum procedure is rarely practiced (this is only possible in the form of Detention in preparation for departure and Temporary detention in some exceptional cases), while the other detention types are possible only after a removal decision has been issued. Therefore, most asylum applicants are detained after their procedure has ended with a decision of removal or transfer according to the Dublin III Regulation.
In Switzerland, cantons are competent to enforce removals as well as to use coercive measures aiming at facilitating such enforcement. Cantonal authorities are thus responsible for ordering detention, which leads to a diversity of detention practices across the country.[1] Against a cantonal detention order, an appeal can be filed to the cantonal appeal instances. The Federal Supreme Court is responsible for examining appeals against decisions issued by the highest cantonal appeal instance.[2]
The cantons are also in charge of the organisation of detention in terms of capacity and conditions, which results in a high number of facilities used for the purpose of administrative detention and a certain diversity of detention conditions. In the whole national territory there are 260 places[3] reserved for administrative detention, be it in specialised detention facilities or in ordinary prisons (see section on Detention conditions). The Federal Supreme Court emphasised in a judgement of 2020[4] that, as a general rule, administrative detention must take place in specialised facilities that are specifically designed for administrative custody and that these facilities must reflect the non-punitive nature of administrative detention. However, the Court acknowledged that exceptions to this rule may be permissible under certain circumstances. In particular, short-term detention in a separate administrative wing of a regular prison may be justified if it is necessary for logistical or operational reasons — such as the imminent organisation of a deportation — and provided that detainees are strictly separated from criminal inmates. The administrative nature of the detention must be preserved at all times. Importantly, the Court held that any deviation from the standard requirement must be clearly justified and documented by the authorities. This ensures that courts can effectively review whether the detention conditions meet legal standards of necessity and proportionality.
Inappropriate practices: The Swiss National Commission for the Prevention of Torture (NCPT) criticised several practices in the returns of former applicants for international protection as not appropriate and inadequate.[5]
Statistics on detention
According to data provided by the SEM, in 2024 administrative detention was ordered against asylum applicants and other foreigners in 2,452 cases. Of this number, 1,676 are related to asylum applicants – 958 of which were Dublin cases. Temporary detention under Article 73 (which cannot exceed 3 days) concerned 701 short-term detentions, 502 related to asylum applicants — 184 of which were Dublin cases.[6] This data should be read with caution for the following three reasons:
- Immigration detention in Switzerland is applied for the purpose of Therefore, the available data on pre-removal detention often concerns both asylum applicants and irregular migrants not having applied for asylum. For this report, it was possible to obtain data on asylum applicants specifically. When the available data concerns immigration detention in general, this will be specified.
- SEM cannot order detention, only the cantons are competent for ordering such measures.[7]
- The definition of detention of asylum applicants in Swiss law is not totally clear. In particular, temporary detention (up to three days) is not always considered detention. The holding of foreign nationals in airport transit zones is also officially not considered detention. For the scope of this report, we consider both types of confinement as detention.
The question of de facto detention in Switzerland
The term de facto detention is not used in case law. There are good legal reasons for considering the accommodation in the transit zone during the airport procedure de facto detention (see Border procedure (border and transit zones)). The same could be said for asylum centres in isolated or remote locations, which provide for limited possibilities of access and movement outside the centres (see Housing).
Federal asylum centres without processing facilities (also called “departure centres”) are used for the accommodation of asylum applicants whose applications resulted in or are highly likely to result in a Dublin decision, as well as for those receiving a negative decision within the accelerated procedure. Those centres are often located in particularly isolated areas, as in the case of Glaubenberg, Giffers/Chevrilles or Flumenthal. Those areas are poorly served by public transportation, which makes it difficult to receive visitors or leave the perimeter of the centre. Another type of asylum centres are the “special centres” for “asylum applicants who pose a significant danger to public safety and order or who significantly disrupt the operation and security of federal centres”.[8] In April 2020, the FAC concluded that accommodation in a special centre did not represent deprivation of liberty. However, it clarified that the decision to assign a person to such centre must be subject to possible contestation within 30 days, even though the law did not foresee a separate remedy against such decision.[9]
In a legal opinion addressed to Federal Commission against Racism, it was stated that a restrictive exit regime and the remote location of centres are particularly sensitive.[10] The possibilities of moving from one place to another, establishing social contacts and shaping everyday life are very limited. The Federal Supreme Court pointed out that reduced exit possibilities represent a significant encroachment on personal freedom, especially if the restrictions last longer than a few days.[11] This also applies to indirect interventions such as time consuming and thus deterrent control procedures at the exit.
In addition, accommodation in a federal asylum centre can involve deprivation of liberty in the form of sanctions. According to Article 25 of the Decree on the operation of federal centres and accommodation at airports, disciplinary measures include the prohibition of exit the centre for one or several days. Each federal asylum centre has a so-called reflection room. This is where asylum applicants whose behaviour poses a threat to other asylum applicants and the federal asylum centres’ staff are temporarily placed while waiting that the police arrive. The use of reflection rooms is regulated in the Ordinance of the FDJP on the management of federal reception centres in the asylum system and accommodation at airports and in an internal directive of the SEM. According to Article 29a of the Ordinance, temporary holding in a reflection room can only be ordered by the management of the asylum centre after having informed the police and can last a maximum of two hours, until the police reach the centre. The holding of children under 15 years old is forbidden. It is planned to introduce a similar legal basis in the asylum law which is expected to come into force in 2025.[12]
This topic is further discussed under Freedom of movement.
[1] See Christin Achermann, Anne-Laure Bertrand, Jonathan Miaz, Laura Rezzonico, Administrative Detention of Foreign Nationals in Figures, in a nutshell #12, January 2019, available in English here. In 2023, the Swiss National Council’s Audit Committee (GPK-N) concluded that most of its 2018 recommendations on administrative detention in the asylum sector have been implemented, particularly praising efforts to avoid detaining minors. It acknowledges the federal government’s efforts to harmonise the ordering and enforcement of administrative detention and encourages further steps toward greater uniformity.
[2] In the Jugment BGE 2C_457/2023, the Federal Supreme Court has clearly stated that every detained person has the right to “appeal to a court at any time” and thus to determine the timing of the review. This is because the judicial review of detention under Article 80a, §. 3 FNIA is a procedural provision that cannot be waived.
[3] Information provided by the SEM, April 2025.
[4] BGer 2C_447/2019 of 31 March 2020.
[5] NCPT, Bericht an das Eidgenössische Justiz- und Polizeidepartement (EJPD) und die Kantonale Konferenz der Justiz- und Polizeidirektorinnen und -direktoren (KKJPD) betreffend das ausländerrechtliche Vollzugsmonitoring von Januar bis Dezember 2023, 22 April 2024.
[6] Information provided by the SEM, March 2025.
[7] Article 80(1) and 80 (1bis) Foreign Nationals and Integration Act (FNIA).
[8] Article 24a AsylA.
[9] FAC, Decision F-1389/2019, 20 April 2020.
[10] Kiener Regina und Medici Gabriela, Asylsuchende im öffentlichen Raum, Rechtsgutachten im Auftrag der Eidgenössischen Kommission gegen Rassismus EKR, February 2017.
[11] Federal Supreme Court, Decision BGE 128 II 156, 9 April 2002, para 2c.
[12] SEM, ‘Modification de la loi sur l’asile (LAsi) : Sécurité et exploitation des centres de la Confédération’, available in French and German.