Erleichterte Einbürgerung bei gutgläubigem Bürgerrechtsbesitz (naturalización facilitada por creencias erróneas de buena fe, BüG Art 22)

CH-MAR-03 is the facilitated naturalisation (erleichterte Einbürgerung) under Art 22 BüG (SR 141.0), in force 2018-01-01, for a person who for FIVE years lived in good faith believing they held Swiss citizenship and was, during that time, ACTUALLY treated as Swiss by a cantonal or communal authority. It is a narrow protective provision grounded in the constitutional protection of legitimate reliance on state conduct (Vertrauensschutz, BV Art 9). The naturalised person receives the cantonal citizenship of the canton responsible for the error, which determines the communal citizenship simultaneously acquired (Art 22(2), decoded primary). The route is analytically distinct from the Art 21 spouse facilitation (CH-MAR-01) and the Art 10 registered-partnership facilitation (CH-MAR-02): those concern a relationship to a Swiss person, whereas Art 22 concerns a person who mistakenly believed they themselves were ALREADY Swiss. It is also distinct from the historic gendered marriage-loss cohort, which is remedied through restoration (CH-RST-03) and the Art 51 transitional facilitation rather than through Art 22. The typical fact pattern is a defective descent chain — a Swiss passport or cantonal citizenship confirmation issued in error on which the person relied while exercising civic acts (voting, register entry) for years before the defect surfaced. Federal competence: the SEM decides after consulting the canton (Art 25(1)).

Eligibility rests on Art 22(1) BüG, decoded verbatim: a person may apply for facilitated naturalisation who 'für fünf Jahre im guten Glauben gelebt hat, das Schweizer Bürgerrecht zu besitzen, und während dieser Zeit von kantonalen oder Gemeindebehörden tatsächlich als Schweizerin oder als Schweizer behandelt worden ist' — i.e. (1) a genuine good-faith belief, held for five years, that they possessed Swiss citizenship; AND (2) during that period, actual treatment as Swiss by a cantonal or communal authority. Both conditions are cumulative. The belief must be bona fide (not a knowing fraud) and the 'actual treatment as Swiss' is the objective anchor — a concrete official act treating the person as a citizen (issuance of a Swiss passport, cantonal certificate of citizenship, register entry as Swiss, or comparable official conduct), not a merely private assumption. The facilitated-naturalisation material conditions of Art 20 apply (integration per Art 12(1)-(2) + no security endangerment), including the BüV Art 6 national-language competence. Where the person's own false declarations caused the error, the good-faith condition is not met and Art 22 is unavailable. The five-year period need not be immediately before application but must be a sustained period of good-faith reliance corroborated by official treatment.

The cumulative requirements (Art 22) are: (1) a genuine, good-faith belief in holding Swiss citizenship, sustained for five years; (2) actual treatment as Swiss by a cantonal or communal authority during that period (the objective anchor — an official act, not a private assumption); (3) absence of the applicant's own fault — the error must not have been caused by the applicant's fraud, misrepresentation or knowing concealment (a self-induced error defeats the good-faith condition); and (4) the Art 20 material conditions — successful integration per Art 12(1)-(2), national-language competence at oral CEFR B1 / written A2 (BüV Art 6), and no endangerment of internal/external security. The cantonal citizenship acquired is that of the canton responsible for the error, which determines the communal citizenship (Art 22(2)). There is NO marriage or partnership requirement (this is the structural difference from CH-MAR-01/02). The provision is applied restrictively in practice and the volume of successful Art 22 applications is small relative to facilitated naturalisation overall.

Core documentation falls into three groups. OBJECTIVE-BASIS evidence (the heart of an Art 22 claim): the Swiss passport or identity document issued in error, a cantonal certificate of citizenship later rescinded, an administrative confirmation of citizenship by a cantonal/communal authority, and register entries (Einwohnerkontrolle / Auslandschweizerregister) recording the person as Swiss. OPERATIVE-PERIOD evidence: records of civic conduct consistent with Swiss citizenship over at least five years (federal/cantonal voting records, register-as-Swiss entries, official correspondence treating the person as Swiss). CHAIN evidence: family-history and descent documents (parental Swiss citizenship records, birth certificates, Heimatausweis of the Swiss-parent generation) establishing the objective chain that generated the erroneous belief and showing the error was not the applicant's own fault. INTEGRATION evidence (Art 20 → Art 12): a recognised national-language certificate (oral B1 / written A2 per BüV Art 6) unless exempt, a criminal-record (VOSTRA) extract, and a debt-enforcement extract. The federal certificate of Swiss citizenship line is CHF 60 (BüV Art 25(1)(f)).

Art 22 is a federal-competence facilitated naturalisation decided by the SEM after consulting the canton (Art 25(1)). Step 1 — Documentation of the objective basis: assemble proof of the official act(s) treating the person as Swiss (the Swiss passport issued in error, a cantonal certificate of citizenship later found erroneous, an administrative confirmation of citizenship, register entries as Swiss) and evidence of the five-year operative period of good-faith reliance (civic acts such as voting records, register-as-Swiss entries). Step 2 — Documentation of the descent/chain that generated the erroneous belief (parental citizenship documents, birth records) to show the belief was objectively grounded and not the applicant's own fault. Step 3 — Filing with the SEM. Step 4 — SEM merits assessment: the good-faith and actual-treatment conditions (Art 22(1)) and the Art 20 integration/security conditions are examined; because the legal assessment of good faith and objective error is fact-intensive, processing is typically slower than for the high-volume Art 21 spouse route. Step 5 — Decision (Verfügung): on a grant the person acquires Swiss citizenship plus the cantonal citizenship of the error-responsible canton, which determines the communal citizenship (Art 22(2)). A refusal must be reasoned and is appealable to the Federal Administrative Court; further appeal to the Federal Supreme Court is constrained for citizenship matters.

The controlling statute is BüG SR 141.0 Art 22 ('Irrtümlich angenommenes Schweizer Bürgerrecht'), decoded verbatim: Art 22(1) sets the good-faith-belief-plus-actual-treatment test; Art 22(2) — 'Die eingebürgerte Person erhält das Kantonsbürgerrecht des für den Irrtum verantwortlichen Kantons. Dieser bestimmt, welches Gemeindebürgerrecht gleichzeitig erworben wird' — assigns the cantonal citizenship of the error-responsible canton, which determines the communal citizenship. The material-conditions gate is Art 20 (integration per Art 12(1)-(2) + security), with the BüV Art 6 language operationalisation. Competence/procedure is Art 25(1): the SEM decides and hears the canton. The doctrinal underpinning is the constitutional protection of legitimate reliance on state conduct (Vertrauensschutz, BV Art 9) — the provision exists so that a person who reasonably relied on erroneous official acts confirming Swiss citizenship is offered a facilitated pathway rather than outright rejection. The constitutional acquisition framework is BV Art 37-38 (tri-level citizenship; federal regulation of acquisition, /072). The mistaken belief most often traces to a defect in a descent chain (CH-DSC-01) — e.g. a pre-1985 maternal-line rule or a pre-1992 parental loss of citizenship that the descendant did not know about (/097).

DISTINCT FROM RESTORATION AND THE HISTORIC COHORTS: Art 22 is for a person who mistakenly believed they were ALREADY Swiss; it is NOT the route for a person whose Swiss citizenship was formally held and then lost (that is restoration, CH-RST-01/03, Art 26-29) and it is NOT the historic gendered marriage-loss remedy (that is the Art 51 transitional facilitation / restoration). FAULT BAR: the good-faith condition is bilateral — both the error and the applicant's reliance must be without the applicant's fault; an error induced by the applicant's own false declarations bars Art 22 and may itself constitute a criminal offence. ROOT CAUSE: most Art 22 claims trace to a defect in a descent chain (CH-DSC-01) — a pre-1985 maternal-line transmission rule not satisfied, or a parent/grandparent who lost Swiss citizenship under the pre-1992 single-nationality regime, unknown to the descendant, with a Swiss passport later issued in error. DUAL CITIZENSHIP: no renunciation is required (since 1992-01-01). CANTONAL CITIZENSHIP: uniquely, the cantonal/communal citizenship acquired is that of the canton RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ERROR (Art 22(2)), not of a spouse or of residence. RELATIONSHIP TO ANNULMENT: where the original Swiss documents were obtained by the applicant's fraud, the proper channel is not Art 22 facilitation but the fraud/annulment framework (Art 36, CH-CBN-01).