19 December 2024 – In its decision of 21 November 2024, the Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by a physician holding a diploma from the former Yugoslavia, against the decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Schwyz concerning the appellant’s application for a partial license to practice medicine in order to independently carry out aesthetic local and superficial treatments involving injections under her own professional responsibility.

The dispute centered on whether the appellant was entitled to a partial professional practice permit to independently perform aesthetic injections (such as botulinum toxin and hyaluronic acid). The cantonal authorities had rejected her application, classifying her diploma as «verified, not recognized», due to the absence of a mutual recognition agreement between Switzerland and Serbia regarding medical diplomas. As a result, she was only permitted to work under supervision.

The court examined whether the lower court had violated federal law. It confirmed that the Federal Act on Medical Professions (Medizinalberufegesetz, MedBG) stipulates that the exercise of a medical profession on one's own responsibility requires either a federal diploma or a foreign diploma recognized by the Swiss authorities (art. 36 para. 1 MedBG).

As the appellant's diploma was from a country that has no recognition agreement with Switzerland, it was not automatically recognized. The court determined that, in such cases, a material equivalence assessment of the foreign diploma is required (art. 36 para. 3 MedBG). Since the appellant did not present such an equivalence certificate, her qualifications did not meet the requirements for independent medical practice.

The court emphasized that the refusal of the permit was proportionate as the MedBG sets out clear and strict requirements for independent professional practice to ensure the protection of public health protection and patient safety.

Furthermore, the appellant argued that the refusal of her permit violated her constitutional rights, in particular the principle of equal treatment (art. 8 para. 1 of the Federal Constitution [Bundesverfassung, BV]) and the prohibition of discrimination (art. 8 para. 2 BV). The court rejected these arguments, stating that the difference in treatment between diplomas from European Union Member States (recognized under agreements) and diplomas from third countries (such as Serbia) was justified and did not constitute discrimination.

For more information, see here.