OVER 2 YEARS OF OPERATIONS
Cases.
In fourteen years, Geneva's bar school has eliminated between 700 and 952 students — and 60% of practising lawyers consider it unnecessary.
The ECAV costs students CHF 3,500. No other Swiss canton requires it. The government, parliament, the judiciary and the Court of Auditors refuse to examine the documented malfunctions.
failure rate in the September 2023 re-sit exam. The definitive elimination rate reached 26% that year, compared with 6.6% before the school was established.
francs drawn from student tuition fees to fund a private market study on the bar traineeship, commissioned by the ECAV itself.
The ECAV generates 5.7 times more litigation than the University of Geneva's law faculty.
The ECAV claims "complete control of access" — but refuses to disclose its grading criteria.
Its president acknowledged that the school ensures "a stricter preliminary selection" (Anwaltsrevue 3/2019). The grading rubrics have never been shared with students.
A trainee may work in Geneva — but Geneva refuses to register them.
The Canton of Vaud authorises a traineeship physically carried out in Geneva. Geneva refuses registration on the ground that the traineeship "has no connection with training in Geneva".
A judge sat on the ECAV's executive board for seven years — it was under her tenure that CHF 87,853 in tuition fees funded a private market study. She then adjudicated the case without recusing herself.
Florence Krauskopf left the ECAV's executive board in 2022. She subsequently sat on both rulings that refused to examine the malfunctions reported by AP2J. Both are before the Federal Supreme Court.
The government claims the malfunctions are "alleged". AP2J has produced over 120 exhibits proving otherwise — none have been examined.
The Minister of Education stated before the parliamentary committee that the petition was based on "allegations that are not correct". The appellants filed 118 to 121 exhibits per proceeding. No judge has examined the merits.
Who selects your judges in Geneva? A commission with no legal basis whatsoever, run by the political parties, for thirty years.
In most democracies, the appointment of judges follows written and transparent rules. In Geneva, it goes through a commission of lawyers mandated by the political parties — with no statutory or constitutional basis.
of judges are no longer elected by citizens following the amendment to the cantonal constitution of 18 May 2025. Their appointment now goes entirely through parliament — and thus through the political parties. Citizens approved this amendment by 71.67% — without knowing that a cross-party commission, with no legal basis, pre-selects the candidates.
of Swiss judges consider that the financial contributions they pay to their political party undermine public trust. In Switzerland, once elected, judges pay a portion of their salary to the political party that supported them — a practice that Geneva's Attorney General has described as "reverse corruption".
mentions of the cross-party commission in the parliamentary report on the reform. The voting brochure sent to citizens contained none.
"Judges are appointed by political parties."
Statement by Carole-Anne Kast, member of the Cantonal Government, before parliament. Recorded in the parliamentary report.
The Council of Europe calls on Switzerland to abolish the payments judges make to political parties.
Its anti-corruption body recommends ending this practice. A judge who does not pay "has no chance of being elected", according to the Mouvement citoyens genevois.
The ECHR requires clear rules for the appointment of judges. Geneva has none.
The Astradsson v. Iceland ruling (2020) requires that the appointment of judges be based on rules pre-established by law. Geneva's cross-party commission operates without any written rules, without oversight and without any right of appeal for a rejected candidate.
CHF 255,000 in public funds paid through direct mandates to associates of a former executive of Geneva's public utility company.
SIG is the cantonal public utility company that supplies water, electricity and gas to Geneva. The former CEO arranged the hiring of a family member while concealing the family relationship. Revealed by the press in September 2025.
years of mandates awarded to this lawyer, without any tender process, from 2016 to 2025.
advisory and representation mandates were awarded over this period.
Parliament established a subcommittee (Cerutti, Nidegger, Wenger) to examine SIG's governance, human resources and public procurement.
The "independent" investigation was entrusted to someone with long-standing ties to the company.
The mandated lawyer had received regular mandates from SIG for nearly ten years. The report was hailed as exemplary by the new chairman of the board — appointed by the government.
After two and a half years, AP2J is party to five proceedings pending before the Federal Supreme Court and has filed complaints with seven cantonal and federal supervisory authorities. It has lodged a criminal complaint in the SIG affair. All work is volunteer-based.