Federal Act
on Foreign Nationals and Integration
(Foreign Nationals and Integration Act, FNIA)1

1 Amended by No I of the FA of 16 Dec. 2016 (Integration), in force since 1 Jan. 2019 (AS 2017 6521, 2018 3171; BBl 2013 2397, 2016 2821).


Open article in different language:  DE  |  FR  |  IT
Art. 74 Restriction and exclusion orders

1 The com­pet­ent can­ton­al au­thor­ity may re­quire a per­son not to leave the area they were al­loc­ated to or not to enter a spe­cif­ic area if:

a.
they do not hold a short stay, res­id­ence or set­tle­ment per­mit and they dis­rupt or rep­res­ent a threat to pub­lic se­cur­ity and or­der; this meas­ure serves in par­tic­u­lar to com­bat il­leg­al drug traf­fick­ing; or
b.188
they are sub­ject to a leg­ally bind­ing ex­pul­sion or­der or re­turn de­cision and spe­cif­ic in­dic­a­tions lead to the be­lief that the per­son con­cerned will not leave be­fore the de­par­ture dead­line or has failed to ob­serve the de­par­ture dead­line.
c.189
de­port­a­tion has been post­poned (Art. 69 para. 3).

1bis The competent cantonal authority shall require a person who is accommodated in a special centre under Article 24aAsylA190not to leave the area they were allocated to or not to enter a specific area.191

2 These meas­ures shall be ordered by the au­thor­ity of the can­ton that is re­spons­ible for the im­ple­ment­a­tion of re­mov­al or ex­pul­sion. In the case of per­sons stay­ing in fed­er­al centres, the can­ton where the centre is loc­ated is re­spons­ible. The pro­hib­i­tion from en­ter­ing a spe­cif­ic area may also be is­sued by the au­thor­ity of the can­ton where this area is loc­ated.192

3 Ap­peals may be lodged with a can­ton­al ju­di­cial au­thor­ity against the or­der­ing of these meas­ures. The ap­peal has no sus­pens­ive ef­fect.

188 Amended by Art. 2 No 1 of the FD of 18 June 2010 on the Ad­op­tion of the EC Dir­ect­ive on the Re­turn of Il­leg­al Im­mig­rants (Dir­ect­ive 2008/115/EC), in force since 1 Jan. 2011 (AS 2010 5925; BBl 2009 8881).

189 In­ser­ted by Art. 2 No 1 of the FD of 18 June 2010 on the Ad­op­tion of the EC Dir­ect­ive on the Re­turn of Il­leg­al Im­mig­rants (Dir­ect­ive 2008/115/EC), in force since 1 Jan. 2011 (AS 2010 5925; BBl 2009 8881).

190 SR 142.31

191 In­ser­ted by An­nex No 1 of the FA of 25 Sept. 2015, in force since 1 March 2019 (AS 2016 3101, 2018 2855; BBl 2014 7991).

192 Amended by An­nex No 1 of the FA of 25 Sept. 2015, in force since 1 March 2019 (AS 2016 3101, 2018 2855; BBl 2014 7991).

BGE

147 IV 253 (6B_378/2020) from 5. Mai 2021
Regeste: Art. 291 Abs. 1 StGB, Art. 119 Abs. 1 i.V.m. Art. 74 Abs. 1 lit. a AIG; Konkurrenz zwischen dem Verweisungsbruch und der Missachtung einer Ausgrenzung. Der Straftatbestand der Missachtung einer Ausgrenzung nach Art. 74 Abs. 1 lit. a AIG schützt zur Hauptsache die öffentliche Sicherheit und Ordnung insbesondere auf dem Gebiet der Betäubungsmittel, während Art. 291 StGB den Vollzug von Ausweisungsentscheiden der Justiz- und Verwaltungsbehörden sicherstellen soll. Der Verweisungsbruch ist im Vergleich zum Straftatbestand der Missachtung einer geografischen Ausgrenzung wegen eines die öffentliche Sicherheit und Ordnung störenden oder gefährdenden Verhaltens des Betroffenen daher kein Spezial- oder konsumierender Tatbestand. Daraus folgt, dass Art. 291 Abs. 1 StGB in echter Konkurrenz mit Art. 119 Abs. 1 AIG zur Anwendung gelangt, wenn die Ausgrenzung gestützt auf Art. 74 Abs. 1 lit. a AIG ausgesprochen wurde (E. 2).

Previous article Show article in the law Next article

Diese Seite ist durch reCAPTCHA geschützt und die Google Datenschutzrichtlinie und Nutzungsbedingungen gelten.

Feedback
Gesetzeskürzel Name
DE FR IT EN
DE FR IT EN
Laden