Введение в действие отзыва в целях военной безопасности/безопасности (BüV Art 30 реализует BüG Art 42) + контекст Wehrpflicht (BV Art 59)

CH-MIL-01 documents the security/military-related WITHDRAWAL (Entzug) of Swiss citizenship and the surrounding military-service (Wehrpflicht) context. The withdrawal power is BüG Art 42: the SEM may, with the consent of the home-canton authority, withdraw Swiss, cantonal and communal citizenship from a DUAL CITIZEN (Doppelbürgerin/Doppelbürger) whose conduct is seriously detrimental to the interests or reputation of Switzerland. That standard is OPERATIONALISED by BüV Art 30 — confirmed in v5 as the exact Entzug-operationalising article — which defines 'seriously prejudices the interests or reputation of Switzerland' by reference to a closed catalogue of StGB offences and requires a final (rechtskräftige) criminal conviction. The 'MIL' label reflects that the catalogue centres on offences with a military/security/armed-conflict character (state-security offences, terrorism/violent-extremism/organised-crime serious crime, genocide/crimes against humanity/war crimes, and foreign-relations insult). Two hard structural constraints define the route: (1) DUAL-CITIZEN-ONLY — withdrawal is restricted to persons holding another nationality, so statelessness can never result (structural anti-statelessness consistent with the 1954 Convention, to which CH is a party since 1972-07-03); (2) FINAL CONVICTION REQUIRED — Art 30 presupposes a rechtskräftige Verurteilung. The route also situates the Wehrpflicht context: every Swiss man owes military or civilian substitute service or a compensatory levy (BV Art 59), extending to Swiss abroad (BV Art 40(2)). Operative_today: true.

CH-MIL-01 is a LOSS route: it describes the conditions under which the State may withdraw citizenship, not criteria an applicant satisfies to gain a benefit. Exposure to Entzug under BüG Art 42 / BüV Art 30 requires the cumulative presence of: (1) DUAL/MULTIPLE NATIONALITY — the person must hold at least one other nationality in addition to Swiss citizenship; a person who is solely Swiss cannot be subjected to Entzug because withdrawal would render them stateless (Art 42 is expressly limited to a 'Doppelbürgerin oder einem Doppelbürger'); (2) CONDUCT seriously detrimental to the interests or reputation of Switzerland, defined exhaustively by BüV Art 30(1) as committing (a) an StGB offence against the state / external security (Art 266, 266bis, 272-274, 275, 275bis, 275ter), (b) a serious crime in the context of terrorist activity, violent extremism or organised crime, (c) genocide (StGB 264), a crime against humanity (264a), a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (264c) or another war crime (264d-264h), or (d) durable endangerment of Switzerland's good relations with a foreign state by insulting that state (StGB 296); and (3) a FINAL (rechtskräftige) criminal conviction for such conduct (BüV Art 30(2)), save the narrow exception where prosecution would be futile because the state where the acts occurred is unwilling or unable to conclude proceedings (e.g. its independent justice system is non-functional). All three conditions, plus home-canton consent (Art 42), are necessary; the SEM also applies a proportionality assessment.

Step 1 — Triggering event: a final (rechtskräftige) criminal conviction for a BüV Art 30 offence, communicated to the SEM by the cantonal criminal-justice authority, or (more rarely) information from federal security/police authorities regarding qualifying conduct; the SEM may also act under the narrow BüV Art 30(2) exception where a final domestic conviction is unobtainable because the foreign forum cannot or will not prosecute. Step 2 — SEM assessment: the SEM verifies (a) that the conviction is rechtskräftig, (b) that the offence falls within the closed BüV Art 30(1) catalogue, (c) that the person holds at least one other nationality (the anti-statelessness check — failure here ends the matter, as Entzug cannot render a person stateless under Art 42), and (d) proportionality in light of the conduct's gravity and the person's circumstances. Step 3 — Home-canton consent: Art 42 requires the consent of the home-canton (Heimatkanton) authority before the SEM may withdraw — a mandatory cantonal-consent step, distinct from the 'hearing the canton' step in naturalisation/restoration. Step 4 — Right to be heard: the affected person has a right to be heard before a decision (general administrative-procedure right). Step 5 — SEM decision: if the SEM proceeds, it issues a reasoned written Entzugsverfügung withdrawing Swiss, cantonal and communal citizenship simultaneously; the withdrawal operates prospectively from the decision's entry into force (unlike the retroactive Nichtigerklärung of Art 36). Step 6 — Appeal: the decision may be appealed to the Federal Administrative Court, with onward appeal to the Federal Supreme Court on points of law subject to the applicable jurisdictional constraints. Admission level: federal (with mandatory Heimatkanton consent).

EDGE 1 — Mono-national convicted of a catalogue offence: a person holding ONLY Swiss citizenship who is convicted of, e.g., a war crime under StGB 264d cannot be subjected to Entzug — Art 42 is dual-citizen-only and withdrawal cannot render a person stateless; the criminal sanction under the StGB is then the only available consequence. EDGE 2 — Foreign conviction only: a final foreign conviction (e.g. for organising a terrorist cell) is grounds for SEM ASSESSMENT, but BüV Art 30(2)'s rechtskräftige-conviction requirement is in principle keyed to a qualifying conviction; absent a Swiss conviction, Entzug rests on the unwilling/unable-foreign-state exception, which is reserved for genuine impossibility of domestic/cooperative prosecution — otherwise the SEM may refer the matter to Swiss prosecutors. EDGE 3 — Children: Art 42 Entzug is personal — it withdraws the dual-citizen individual's federal/cantonal/communal citizenship; it does not automatically strip a child who holds Swiss citizenship in their own right (citizenship is not punitively heritable in the withdrawal context); contrast the explicit child-extension of Nichtigerklärung (Art 36(4), CH-CBN-01). EDGE 4 — Service-evasion: a Swiss man who performs neither military nor civilian substitute service owes the compensatory levy (Wehrpflichtersatz, BV Art 59(3)) — this is NOT a BüV Art 30 catalogue offence and cannot found an Entzug. EDGE 5 — Pending/appealed conviction: a conviction not yet rechtskräftig (under appeal or within the appeal period) does NOT satisfy BüV Art 30(2); the SEM must await Rechtskraft. EDGE 6 — Catalogue boundary: an offence not listed in BüV Art 30(1), however serious, cannot ground an Entzug — the catalogue is closed.