Common technical interfaces between the Confederation and the cantons, and an administration that reuses the data it already holds: two projects moved a step forward during the spring session, according to an article published on 23 March 2026 by digitalswitzerland. The umbrella organisation describes the decisions as “foundational”. It is not, however, a neutral observer: it presents itself as the coordinator of the national AI action plan, into which it places this work. Its account should therefore be read as that of a stakeholder, and brought back to the procedural steps it describes.

Only one chamber has voted

The headline of the source article refers to “Parliament”. The decisions described are in fact those of the Council of States, the upper chamber. The National Council has not yet voted on the first item, and the second has not been decided on its merits. No law and no amendment to the Constitution has been adopted at this stage.

A “digitalisation article” in the Constitution

First item: the Council of States approved what digitalswitzerland calls the “digitalisation article”. In concrete terms, the upper chamber adopted a motion from the Political Institutions Committee. The text seeks a new federal competence enshrined in the Federal Constitution, which would in future oblige the Confederation and the cantons to “speak the same technical language”, that is, to apply binding standards for the transmission of data.

The argument is a practical one: only uniform interfaces would make it possible to offer digital administrative services without media discontinuity, meaning without going through paper or re-entering data from one system to another. Common standards are presented as the basic condition for an efficient administration.

The scope of this vote should nonetheless be kept in perspective. In the source’s own words, it “brings closer” this constitutional competence; it does not create it. The item now goes to the National Council. The article gives neither the number of the motion, nor its exact wording, nor the timetable for the rest of the debate. The content of the future provision therefore remains to be defined.

Data reuse: referred back to committee

The second item, motion 25.4620 on the multiple use of administrative data, took a more complicated route. The Federal Council proposed rejecting it, for financial reasons according to digitalswitzerland. The Council of States neither adopted nor rejected the text: it followed a procedural motion and referred the item to the competent committee for in-depth examination.

This referral draws on reports by the Swiss Federal Audit Office (SFAO). They stress the need to create legal bases so that the administration can use the data at its disposal more efficiently, and more than once, in line with the so-called “once-only” principle. The committee must now analyse the legal and structural aspects of the matter in order to provide a solid basis for a decision.

The source does not name the committee concerned, does not cite the SFAO reports precisely and gives no deadline for this examination. Nor does it put a figure on the costs that prompted the Federal Council’s opposition.

digitalswitzerland ties both files to the notion of “AI-ready data”, which it presents as an integral part of the national AI action plan. Its article mentions the goal of establishing “AI-ready” infrastructure by 2027, without specifying who set it.

It links this deadline to the Global AI Summit 2027 in Geneva, which Switzerland intends to use to position itself internationally as a trusted hub for AI innovation. A high-performing administrative data base anchored in law would, in its view, be the necessary condition for this.

This connection reflects digitalswitzerland’s own assessment. The decisions of the Council of States, as reported, concern technical standards and data reuse; the article does not say that the parliamentary debates dealt with AI or with the Geneva summit. Nor is there anything to indicate that the legal bases mentioned will be in force by 2027.

What remains to be decided

  • The National Council has yet to vote on the motion concerning the digitalisation article.
  • The content of the future constitutional competence (which standards, set by whom, with what obligations for the cantons) is not specified in the source.
  • The committee dealing with motion 25.4620 must deliver its analysis; the Council of States has not yet ruled on the merits.
  • The Federal Council’s financial objection still stands, with no known amount.
  • No timetable for these steps has been announced, even though the stated goal is 2027.

The parliamentary texts themselves, the motion from the Political Institutions Committee and motion 25.4620, are not linked in the digitalswitzerland article. Yet it is these texts that will make it possible to judge the real scope of these decisions.

Sources