Opens in a new tab

Swiss upper house backs levy on EU workers

Tuesday 29th September 2026 on 14:30 in Switzerland

EU, immigration, Switzerland

Switzerland’s Council of States has voted to add a levy on EU workers to a migration safeguard in the country’s new agreements with the EU, marking the first departure from the negotiated package, SRF reported.

The chamber also voted to require EU citizens moving to Switzerland to present a criminal record extract. If checks show that a person poses a relevant risk, their right to stay could be refused or restricted.

Under the negotiated safeguard, the Swiss government must consider activating measures if any of four thresholds are exceeded: net immigration from the EU, the number of new cross-border workers, rising unemployment or the proportion of people receiving social assistance. The Council of States wants the government to review the need to invoke the clause every year.

The proposed levy would be charged to employers for people in paid employment. Adult family members joining them would also have to pay. Revenue would be distributed to the population. The measure would also apply to people from outside the EU and European Free Trade Association once the safeguard was activated.

Justice Minister Beat Jans said a levy would not conflict with the EU agreement, but warned it would present significant legal and administrative obstacles. The chamber also tightened rules on permanent residence for EU citizens. People who are unemployed or receive social assistance would be unable to apply, and their five-year qualifying period would start again. Jans argued that a general exclusion of people receiving social assistance would not comply with the free movement of persons.

The Council of States further voted to require checks, as part of residence permit and registration procedures, on whether an applicant poses a danger to public security, order or health. The criminal record requirement passed on the deciding vote of its president, Stefan Engler. The committee that reviewed the proposal had recommended requiring the document only where there was a specific suspicion.

Source 
(via SRF)