<>
A residential real estate transaction in Samedan, Graubünden, has escalated into a complex multi-year legal battle involving state liability claims, leaked documents, and criminal complaints against local officials, according to reports from Swiss media outlet Blick. The dispute centers on a single family home purchased in 2005 by a Lucerne physician who believed he was acquiring a secondary residence, only to discover later that the property was subject to a strict primary residency requirement.
The Dispute Over the Samedan Residence
According to Blick, the physician bought the property in 2005 while working at a local hospital. The core of the legal conflict emerged because the municipality of Samedan had failed to enter the strict primary residency requirement into the land register when the building permit was issued in 1997. The omission came to light years later when the owner attempted to sell the house and municipal authorities informed him of the restriction in 2013. A cantonal expert appraisal subsequently calculated the financial loss at 1.3 million Swiss francs, representing the value difference between primary and secondary housing markets.
Legal Actions and Expert Assessments
Represented by St. Moritz attorney Guido Lazzarini, the physician filed a state liability claim against the canton of Graubünden and the municipality of Samedan, which ultimately failed at the Federal Supreme Court. To support the claim, Lazzarini commissioned private legal opinions from criminal law professors at the universities of Basel and Zurich. These reports concluded that the notary who notarized the 2005 sale had committed fraud. Records show the notary also served as the mayor of Samedan in 1997 and 2005, headed the local building commission, and signed the original 1997 building permit containing the primary residency obligation without informing the buyer during the later transaction.
Criminal Investigations and Counter-Charges
Blick reports that the initial fraud allegations were never investigated by regional law enforcement, and the matter eventually became time-barred in 2020. The Graubünden public prosecutor’s office defended its inaction by stating that private expert opinions alone were insufficient to open criminal proceedings. A subsequent 2023 legal report from the University of Zurich alleged that the investigating prosecutor committed intentional inaction. Lazzarini subsequently filed criminal complaints alleging favoritism against the prosecutor and several cantonal judges, but the regional public prosecutor’s office dismissed the case against its colleague, and the parliamentary justice commission denied the authorization required to investigate the judges.
Meanwhile, the notary filed criminal complaints against the physician and Lazzarini for unfair competition and false accusation, utilizing documents from the confidential state liability proceedings. Following intervention by the Federal Supreme Court, investigations revealed that a cantonal prosecutor had likely leaked confidential files to the notary. That inquiry closed without formal charges after the canton declined to pursue an internal complaint against its employee, according to Blick.
Recent Developments and Court Proceedings
The Federal Supreme Court has intervened in multiple aspects of the case, including jurisdictional questions regarding where the unfair competition charges should be heard, and successfully overturned a conviction against Lazzarini for false accusation. In early 2026, however, a court of first instance convicted the physician and his attorney of unfair competition. That ruling is currently not legally binding, and further appeals to federal judges are anticipated as the protracted legal battle continues.
Related reading