Aargau Administrative Court upholds residence status of woman in Untersiggenthal sexual case

The appellant had appealed against an expulsion order issued by the migration authorities. She invoked, among other things, the protection of her private life and the continued existence of her employment relationship. The Administrative Court concluded that the requirements for a fictitious employment relationship were not met.

Central reasoning of the court

A central point in the ruling concerns future employment prospects. The court states that the «Chancen auf eine erneute Erwerbstätigkeit seien intakt». According to the ruling, this finding is based on the existing employment relationship and on a realistic prospect of re-entering the labor market after any health-related or professional restrictions.

The appeal against the expulsion was largely upheld to the extent that it challenged the immediate enforcement of the expulsion. As a result, based on the current state of affairs, the woman is not required to leave Switzerland as long as her employment prospects remain and no new legally relevant circumstances arise.

The Untersiggenthal case has attracted attention beyond the canton's borders for months. A former cantonal parliamentarian in the Canton of Aargau must stand trial on allegations of sexual assaults and other offenses. The Administrative Court ruling concerns exclusively the residence-law situation of the woman and not the core case itself.

Independent criminal proceedings

For the assessment, it also played a role that the employment conditions – namely salary, level of employment, and contractual basis – corresponded to those of real gainful employment. The Administrative Court explains that neither the relationship with the former cantonal parliamentarian nor the temporal scope of the employment permitted the conclusion that the job was merely a pretext.

The respondent in the appeal, the competent migration office of the Canton of Aargau, had argued that the employment relationship served exclusively to secure residence. The court contradicts this with reference to the documented work performance and the absence of contrary findings in the file.

Legally, the decision is based, among other things, on the provisions of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons with the EU and on the EFTA Convention, which are invoked to address the question of expulsion. The decisive factor is whether sufficient prospects of employment exist that make further residence in the Schengen area appear justified.

Legal framework

With the ruling, the residence-law part of the proceedings is concluded for the time being. The criminal proceedings against the former cantonal parliamentarian are proceeding separately and are independent of the Administrative Court's decision. Should the woman's employment situation change substantially, the migration office could issue a new order.

The woman therefore remains resident in the Canton of Aargau, at least for the time being. Observers interpret the decision as an indication that the Aargau administrative judiciary continues to conduct an individual review of employment prospects in expulsion cases and does not follow blanket assumptions about sham employment.