Swiss pension funds in the canton of Vaud (CPEV) and the inter-municipal scheme Caisse intercommunale de pensions (CIP) are facing legal pressure to disclose their investments, with a case now heading to the federal supreme court.
The question of whether CPEV is subject to the canton’s law on access to official information and documents (LInfo) is currently under appeal, according to the Vaud authority for data protection and the right to information.
The Supreme Court will provide a definitive ruling on the matter, the authority said, adding that it has consistently maintained that both CPEV and CIP fall within the scope of LInfo.
“We have never been called upon to comment on the issue of publicising the investment of public pension fund funds,” the authority said.
Investigative organisation WAV requested mediation from the authority regarding the pension funds’ investments after their asset manager, Retraites Populaires, declined to disclose allocations, mainly to bonds and equities, said Olivier Christe of WAV.
The mediation process has now been suspended as the case proceeds to the federal court, he added.
Retraites Populaires told IPE it will be able to provide answers at the beginning of May.
Separately, Patrick Gross, an activist linked to the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, has sought access to information on CPEV’s investments in Israel, bringing the matter before a cantonal court.
In February, the court ruled that LInfo applies to CPEV as a cantonal public-law institution but referred the case back to the pension fund to assess the specific request.
The ruling highlighted a key legal question: whether CPEV qualifies as an authority subject to LInfo. The fund argues that, while it is a public-law institution, it does not perform a cantonal public-law function, but rather operates similarly to private pension funds covering employees of other employers.
Further disclosures
WAV is collaborating with investigative organisation CORRECTIV.Schweiz to push for greater transparency around investments by Swiss public entities, using cantonal access-to-information frameworks where necessary.
“The main reason [for doing this] is transparency, there are financial risks and there should be a public debate, which is not possible without having this basic information,” Christe said.
The organisations have already secured disclosures from the Geneva pension fund (CPEG) and the Basel-Landschaft scheme (BLPK).
Last year, CPEG divested Israeli government bonds following political pressure.
Christe said there is no clear pattern in transparency practices across Swiss public pension funds.
Some more conservative cantons, such as Schwyz, have granted access to investment data, while others considered more progressive, including Basel-Stadt with its Pensionskasse Basel-Stadt (PKBS), have resisted disclosure and commissioned legal reviews to determine their obligations, he said.
