Executive Summary

The Federal Office of Police (fedpol) issued two entry bans in 2024 and 2025 that did not comply with standard procedures. The Audit Committee of the States Council (GPK-S) subsequently investigated the internal processes and made recommendations. The Federal Council acknowledges the deviations as exceptions, but considers the existing structures appropriate and has already implemented several recommendations.

Persons

  • Federal Council (collective institution)

Topics

  • Administrative law and procedural processes
  • Police measures
  • Parliamentary oversight
  • Internal security

Clarus Lead

The Federal Office of Police faces criticism over two entry bans issued without new findings and outside established procedures. The then fedpol director revised decisions of the legal department following intervention by the Zurich cantonal police – an approach that the Federal Council now classifies as an exceptional case. At the same time, the government confirms the appropriateness of existing competencies and announced improvements in oversight by the Federal Department of Justice and Police (EJPD).

Detailed Summary

The controversy concerns two cases from 2024 and 2025 in which fedpol issued entry bans under external pressure, even though the responsible legal department had previously rejected them. In both cases, the commander of the Zurich cantonal police intervened with the fedpol director, whereupon she revised the decisions without new factual basis. The Federal Council emphasizes that this violates common practice and that the office management had never previously reversed a decision of the responsible department in this manner.

The Federal Council defends the existing structures: the decision-making competencies at fedpol are appropriately regulated, responsibilities are clearly distributed. The system itself was not deficient, but rather its implementation by the then management. The Federal Council rejects a detailed reorganization of competencies and sees no need for action here. At the same time, it supports recommendations to strengthen oversight by the EJPD: the latter should regularly examine how fedpol handles provisions and establish clear rules on when politically exposed persons must be submitted to the EJPD for decision. These efforts have already been initiated.

Key Statements

  • Two procedural deviations: fedpol issued two entry bans without new findings and outside established processes – an unprecedented approach in the office's history.
  • Structures are appropriate: The Federal Council considers existing competencies and procedures appropriate; the problem lay in their disregard, not in their design.
  • Oversight will be improved: The EJPD will intensify its control activities and create clear regulations for cases involving politically exposed persons.

Critical Questions

  1. Evidence/Data Quality: What objective criteria determine whether an entry ban is substantively justified? How is it ensured that external interventions do not distort professional assessment?

  2. Conflicts of Interest: What incentives could lead local police authorities to exert pressure on federal decisions? How is the independence of decision-makers protected?

  3. Causality/Alternatives: Were the two entry bans professionally correct, or did political intervention lead to materially incorrect decisions? Would stronger oversight have prevented the deviations?

  4. Feasibility/Risks: Are the planned oversight measures sufficient to prevent future deviations? What consequences has the Federal Council drawn for the responsible former director?

Source Directory

Primary Source: Federal Council press release: "Entry bans by fedpol: The Federal Council takes a position on the GPK-S report" – https://www.news.admin.ch/de/newnsb/zlErP5q3UB76

Supplementary Sources:

  1. Audit Committee of the States Council: Report on internal administrative procedures for entry bans (November 11, 2025)
  2. Federal Council statement of February 25, 2026

Verification Status: ✓ March 2, 2026

This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-checking: March 2, 2026