Executive Summary

The Federal Department of the Interior launches a public consultation procedure on May 20, 2026 regarding amendments to the Accident Insurance Ordinance (UVV) of December 20, 1982. The revision is intended to implement Motion 11.3811 by Darbellay, which aims to close a legal gap in accident insurance. The consultation period ends on September 10, 2026. Interested parties may submit comments on the proposed amendments until that date.

Persons

  • Darbellay (Motion sponsor)

Topics

  • Accident insurance
  • Public consultation procedure
  • Regulatory changes

Clarus Lead

The launch of the public consultation procedure marks a formal milestone in implementing a parliamentary mandate to eliminate protection gaps in the accident insurance system. With a three-month consultation period (May 20 to September 10, 2026), the public and social partners have the opportunity to submit statements on the planned ordinance amendments.

Detailed Summary

The consultation concerns the Accident Insurance Ordinance (UVV), a central regulatory framework of Swiss social insurance. The planned amendment is based on Motion 11.3811, submitted by Darbellay, which explicitly addresses a legal gap in accident insurance. The procedure follows the standardized Swiss legislative process: after the consultation phase, the submitted statements will be evaluated before the Federal Council makes its final decision on the ordinance.

Technical details on the consultation are accessible via the Fedlex platform (https://fedlex.data.admin.ch/eli/dl/proj/2026/19/cons_1). Inquiries can be directed to the Communications Office of the Federal Chancellery (+41 58 462 37 91).

Key Statements

  • Public consultation launch for UVV amendment on May 20, 2026
  • Implementation of Motion 11.3811 (Darbellay) to close a legal gap
  • Consultation period: May 20 to September 10, 2026

Critical Questions

  1. (Evidence/Data Quality) Which specific legal gap will be closed by the planned ordinance amendment, and which cases or groups of persons are currently insufficiently protected?

  2. (Conflicts of Interest/Independence) Which stakeholders (insurers, employers, employees, insured persons) coordinated in preparing this motion, and are there diverging positions?

  3. (Causality/Alternatives) Why was this specific ordinance amendment chosen as the solution path, rather than a legislative amendment or an administrative practice adjustment?

  4. (Feasibility/Risks) What financial or administrative impacts does the amendment have on accident insurance carriers and contribution rates?

  5. (Evidence/Source Validity) Has the identified legal gap been documented through empirical data or case examples, and are these accessible to the public?

Sources

Primary Source: Public Consultation Launch: Federal Department of the Interior – https://www.news.admin.ch/de/newnsb/eexZyVChfUcb4vEGS6jmY

Verification Status: ✓ May 20, 2026

This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-checking: May 20, 2026