frequencia regularly provides you with relevant information from the fields of society, politics and science. Here you will find information on the progress of political demands, the state of research in the field of mobile radio technology and opinions on current events. Read our news articles, talk about them around you and share them on your social media channels. Spread the knowledge.

Peter Schlegel

in Rally
We require low-radiation living spaces. We demand a time out for reflection.

ETH Engineer in Civil Engineering, Expert in electrosmog, Member of the frequencia Committee


Dear fellow demonstrators!

We stand here in front of the house from which the Federal Council intends to implement the Swiss Digital Strategy. One may wonder: Will the Swiss be forced to want a full digitization of Switzerland? Where is the public debate on how digitization has recently changed our lives and will change them even more? Because it will change not only our professional life, but also our fundamental freedoms, our health, our social life, our cultural life!

5G is part of the Swiss digital strategy. Apparently, only 5G can offer the massive data transmission capacity for a fully digital and intelligent Switzerland to operate. However, the 4G+5G 1st phase network, currently being extended and used mainly for video streaming, will not be sufficient. No, the second phase of the 5G network which uses millimetre waves, whose health effects can only be guessed, will be essential.

In order for this total digitization to be applied, it must not be publicly admitted that the airwaves make people sick. But they do ! I know this with absolute certainty thanks to my 20 years of experience in the field of measurement; my Swiss and foreign colleagues also know it. And we really and truly know that radio waves have a pathogenic potential. Many studies conducted by researchers independent of industry attest this fact. In addition, there was a several decades long experience which evaluated tens of thousands of people who suffer from radio frequencies. This practical experience has been summarised in indicative values that are well below the so-called Swiss precautionary limit.

With this knowledge, we bring forth a basic claim. We demand low radiation in living spaces and information and communication technologies [ICTs] that are compatible with health and the environment. The realization of this basic claim involves concrete requirements:

■ The radiation limit value of the antenna must not be increased. Not even through the clever trick of averaging the measured values. Because it is the measured peak values which determine the harmful effects on health!

■ Internet power supply inside the house must be separated from mobile Internet outside. And if the radiation from the antennas no longer has to pass through the walls, it can be reduced considerably – along with the limit value.

■ Those who want a radiation-free home must have the legal right not to be supplied by the mobile service. On the other hand, those who choose this technology should not irradiate their neighbours with it. This is not easy to solve! But we have to find ways to do it. Otherwise, part of the population will be victimized by the other part committing a sort of home invasion.

■ We require low radiation areas in public life, housing and nature. A growing proportion of our population is limited in their daily lives by radiation, sometimes to the extreme. I know many people who sleep in the basement and can no longer travel by train.

■ The energy needs of the fixed and mobile Internet, which will explode as a result of total digitisation, must be taken into account in the energy strategy and climate objectives.

■ General information on risks and radiation protection need to be substantially improved. This applies to public authorities and politics, schools at all levels, the public health sector, telecommunications installation companies and the general population. And this information should no longer be one-sided and selective, but should encompass all existing knowledge.

STOP 5G is the request for a pause for reflection. From Switzerland, something more than just being a technical model could shine in the world, namely the demonstration of a counterweight

Andreas Sommer

in Rally
Let’s solve the 5G problem like firefighters put out a fire together! No one asks us about who we are, but everyone is happy for the help of their neighbour.

Andreas Sommer. National Council Candidate.

Jérôme Meier

in Rally
Over the last 3 months, more than 20,000 people have made use of their right of objection and have blocked 100% of all construction permits for the new antennas.

Member of the Schutz-vor-Strahlung Committee

What we can do now. 

Grüezi mitenand. My name is Jérôme Meier, I am a familyfather and live in the Zurich Oberland. In the association “Schutz vor Strahlung” I am active on the board for marketing and communication. New technology has always fascinated me – but it also alerts me more and more.

A home without WIFI and a homemade mobile power supply

Let’s take a look at our smartphones – pure fascination. So many computers in so little space. But also a lot of radiation from such a small device. So how can we use these things without causing emissions? From home? From school? In public transport?

At home, for example: I live with my partner, our son and his three daughters. And with 5 smartphones. Yes, we have 5 smartphones at home, but all are connected to the Internet via a network cable, always switched to aircraft mode and thus without radio pollution. WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, SnapChat: everything works perfectly, flawlessly and super fast, whether with iPhone or Android. An adapter makes this possible and connects your smartphone without exposure to harmful radiation via WIFI or mobile phones.

The same holds true at school. There is no reason to expose your home, your children’s classrooms or libraries with WIFI or homemade mobile radio. The same goes for other devices such as Sonos speakers, printers or landlines, there are solutions without radiation. Subscribe to our newsletter or visit our website, we will keep you informed.

Blocking of building permits for antennas

Residents of Switzerland have a great privilege. Our political system allows us to oppose building permits for antennas. In the last three months more than 20,000 people have made use of it, blocking nearly 100% of all building permits.

The first decision concerning the authorization of a mobile telephone antenna is taken by the municipality or the cantonal administration. Due to the fact that the transmission power of 5G antennas is not currently measurable and the current precautionary principle is violated, we expect a suspension of all building permits for 5G. No, we demand the suspension of 5G building permits from municipalities and by our politicians and representatives.

We must continue to defend our rights and block requests to build antennas with our objections.

This is currently part of a solution that all of us can oppose.

The “Schutz vor Strahlung” association has created an antenna alarm for you. If an antenna is planned in your municipality, we will inform you and you can then object with a standard letter. Subscribe to the free antenna alarm.

Thank you very much for your commitment. Have courage and defend yourself against this arbitrariness.


Thomas Hardegger

in Rally
Public debate is necessary. Operators are installing a new network at a frantic pace that even exceeds the wishes of the economy and the majority in Parliament.

Member of the National Council, SP, ZH and initiator of the Parliamentary Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation, Environment and Health (PGNIS)


Development of data traffic – not without the participation of the population

We must note that the mobile telephone sector is setting up a new network at a frenetic pace that even exceeds the wishes of the economy and those of the majority in Parliament.

But who gave the order to Swisscom, Sunrise, Salt and UPC for this infrastructure expansion?

Not the population! Not the municipalities! Not the cantons! Or did we ask for them? No, the upgrade is being done without the mandate of the population.

The management of Roche, Google, UBS, Givaudan, Swisscom and other major companies have advised the Federal Council and defined Switzerland’s digitalisation strategy to date. Thus, only the earnings prospects determine the population’s needs in terms of data provision. The population should thus be able to stream, broadcast, download, download more, e-banking, / shop/ share data / vote / operate/ monitor / be monitored and so on and so forth. Soon we will no longer have to talk to each other: By the time we have put a thought in words, someone will have already answered it online.

What we have never asked the population is whether they actually wanted for no corner of Switzerland to be left unconnected to the network, i.e. that were not exposed to mobile phones or WIFI radiation. Are there 100,000, 500,000 or one million radiation-sensitive inhabitants whose well-being is limited or even exposed to unbearable health risks? This number is not relevant because our federal constitution guarantees physical integrity and protects minorities. All this is flouted if the economy alone can decide what is beneficial and and will generate returns quickly. Those who do not promise them any income are ignored.

The transition from 4G to 5G is, as the economy rightly says, a quantum leap. The new 5G technology allows transferable data to be multiplied by a hundred and thereby also increases the risk that one would be much more exposed to the waves. This is what I experienced in the industrial area of my municipality when the new technology was installed, then experimented on all the workers during field tests to determine how to implement 5G technology in order to get maximum power. Complaints about physical disorders were not taken seriously.

All critical issues concerning exposure, long-term effects, control of one’s own devices, and even reducing mobile phone exposure to radiation to the ear, are disruptive factors for the mobile phone industry. I also wonder if we really need this expansion when more than 90% of the equipment is used for entertainment services and a cable connection would ensure lower radiation and a more reliable supply. If the public had a veto, it would trigger a discussion and raise questions such as: What do we really need? How can we protect ourselves? How can we prevent damage to our health, genetic material, environment and wildlife in the medium to long term? And how can we protect our friends and acquaintances who are electrohypersensitive and who will be entitled to a healthy environment free from radiation?

Public debate is necessary, with or without popular initiative, with or without objections to the antennas, whether industry and authorities do so voluntarily or under pressure.



Rebekka Meier

in Rally
Why are operators allowed to exceed the limit values?

Head of Construction Law at the Schutz-vor-Strahlung Association and President of the 5G-Moratorium Association


It is ultimately the facts and figures that determine whether 5G is really dangerous or not. And is 5G dangerous? I say yes! 5G is dangerous! 5G antennas have a very special feature: they can concentrate their emission energy on a very small area. If I were an antenna, and you were in front of me using 4G with your mobile phone, I would irradiate all the people in front of me. Now switch to 5G mode. So I focus all my transmission energy on you. And so, there is a huge increase in radiation exposure between me as an antenna and you as a user. You can transmit ten times more data, but you will be irradiated accordingly. And what if there was a room between you and me? What if you watch TV with your 5G mobile phone? And you, and you, and you, and you, and you and you too? So one can’t deny the fact that radiation exposure increases dramatically.

We may ask ourselves the question: But will our limit values not then be exceeded? Of course they will. But why are operators allowed to exceed our limit values? Whether or not the limit values are met depends on the transmission power of the antenna. In other words, the radiation power of the antenna. Until now, operators had to specify the maximum in order to ensure that the limit values would always be respected. But since June 1st, adaptive antennas can radiate as strongly as they want and there are no more limits. And by that, I really mean NO limit value! As long as the antennas radiate correctly on average, they are allowed to radiate as much as they wish. This is exactly the same as if we were allowed to drive an average of 120 km/h on the highway from now on. So sometimes we drive at 300 km/h, and sometimes at 20 km/h.

Operators say in unification negotiations: No, no, no, no, we always indicate the maximum values. The average will only arrive in 2020. But what proof of that is there? There are no measuring instruments, no measuring procedures and no instructions for measuring 5G antennas. No one knows if 5G antennas already radiate much more than what is allowed today.

The environmental authorities say: No, no, we can check in the quality assurance system if the antenna transmits as approved. But 5G antennas are not included in the quality assurance system at all. They cannot be controlled in any way.

All this constitutes a circumvention of the precautionary principle. I demand that all cantonal governments and our national government respect our precautionary limits and that all branches in Switzerland comply fully with them.

5G antennas ignore precautionary limits!

With 5G, radiation exposure would increase significantly!

5G antennas cannot be measured or controlled!

5G antennas exceed our limit values!

For the protection of our health, we raise our voice and apply our precautionary principle!

Thank you all for your personal commitment!



Olivier Bodenmann

in Rally
It is FALSE to claim that 5G would be environmentally friendly.

Olivier Bodenmann. EPFL electrical engineer, expert in electrosmog, member of the frequencia committee.

Pro-5G circles are now trying to sell us 5G by claiming that it’s environmentally friendly.

It’s greenwashing! We are presented with only one side of things and the “other side of the coin” is ignored.

It is FALSE to claim that 5G would be “environmentally friendly” as some operators say, simply under the pretext that the energy efficiency of the protocol would be better than 4G and that the 5G antennas would only transmit if necessary and would otherwise be in “sleep mode”.

The problems are that:

  • We have not taken account of the fact that 5G is precisely there to connect a large quantity of objects and will therefore ultimately carry much more data, which will in the best case equate to the same energy level as the current situation with 4G, or even be worse,
  • 5G antennas will NEVER be in “sleep mode”, precisely because of all these permanently connected objects that require continuous data transmission
  • According to the IEEE (Spectrum 24.07.2019), “A 5G base station should generally consume about three times more energy than a 4G base station. And more 5G base stations are needed to cover the same area. This is due to the modulation of the 5G signal, pushed to the extreme to transmit more data, thus requiring a higher power (high peak factor and need for a “clean” signal)
  • The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) already advised in 2018: “EMF exposure limits should be harmonized worldwide on the basis of international guidelines” which means 61V/m ! This is criminal unconsciousness, because these limits are anything but scientific since they ignore the biological effects of electromagnetic waves. The European Council recognized this in its Resolution 1815, saying that these limits “present serious weaknesses”.
  • The deployment of 5G is in any case extremely damaging for the planet, due to the quantities of materials needed to build tens or hundreds of millions of antennas, billions of mobile devices, on top of the 100 billion (!) “connected objects” (otherwise useless!) that we are promised. Not to mention the mountain of waste generated. These materials are also extracted under inhumane conditions, often by children. And these hundreds of billions of devices will become waste (very little recyclable) in less than ten years, further aggravating this already heavy toll. We are being told about improvement of waste management with 5G, but it will produce even more!
  • No study of the damage that 5G could cause to flora and fauna has been done

Effects on bird and insect populations are feared and have already been reported.

  • With all these objects connected, the amount of data generated will be monstrous and it will take a lot of servers and powerful computers to be managed. This will generate massive energy consumption, while IT systems (the “cloud”) are already the 5th largest consumer of energy resources on the planet.

With 5G, this will increase exponentially! Again, only the sales revenue aspect is taken into account, neglecting the negative aspects.

The network of 20,000 satellites planned by several companies to broadcast 5G all over the planet has several serious disadvantages:

  • A constant exposition of almost the entire surface of the planet, an irradiation from which it will be difficult if not impossible to escape unless living underground, and which will affect all living beings at the surface, this millimeter wave irradiation will particularly affect insects, further aggravating the decline of their population,
  • The destruction of the ozone layer by the fuel used to launch these satellites, not to mention the many maintenance operations required for this satellite network,
  • Unrestrained consumption of additional resources and the pollution that will result,
  • An additional pollution of the already very crowded orbital space with all kinds of waste
  • Impossible to forecast weather!!!!

The environment is also human society!

The development of a network such as 5G will have consequences on human society:

  • Unbridled automation, robotization of society, confinement in “smart cities”.
  • Surveillance of individuals for “security reasons” (example: China), loss of freedom
  • Increasing hyper-connectivity and cyber-addiction
  • Dictatorship of artificial intelligence (AI), loss of human autonomy in general
  • Health problems in the overexposed population (diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer, autism, kidney faileure, etc.)
  • Increase in the number of people intolerant to the waves (EHS) unable to work and therefore dependent on society
  • Potential epidemic of degenerative diseases of the eyes
  • Decreased reproduction and damage to DNA


“So we’re preparing the 5G telephone network. Actively. With frenzy and impatience! For a slightly reduced latency time and the certainty that high-definition videos will be visible “outdoors” without interruption, we will deploy countless antennas, destroy previous ones, renew everything – most likely in multiples, disjointed operators force…

This is the archetype of what leads to disaster. Our structural inability to say “That’s enough, we don’t need, we don’t want, this senseless abundance; we reject this lethal idea that everything technologically possible must actually be achieved, for the deadly enjoyment of pure consumption.”

…] Even with a perfectly “clean” energy source, the effects of deployment (of 5G) would be dramatic.

5G kills[…], as an artificial creation of an arbitrary need with devastating consequences. We CAN NO LONGER continue to act “as if” these follies had no consequences. We have already killed 70% of the living things, with almost no global warming. Do we prefer the life or flow of the telephone network? It’s almost as simple as that. [end of quote] So let’s BOYCOTT the phones and connected objects 5G!


in Rally
Where will the EHS go if radiation sources are multiplied everywhere by 5G?
Designer and multidisciplinary artist, intolerant to the waves (EHS), member of

When she wrote the song Wi-feel in 2014, Deva, singer-songwriter of Respiria, was newly diagnosed as intolerant to electromagnetic or electrohypersensitive (EHS) radiation. She could no longer stand a simply switched-on mobile phone, suffered burns in her inner ear and brain fog. Even at home she felt like a refugee. After years of complex and costly care and an iron discipline to try to “strengthen” herself, she can once again lead a social life limited to certain situations. However, her life is still very complicated: Neighbours who don’t care about WIFI effects, loss of lucrative mandates as WIFI is required everywhere, travel disabilities, the list is endless… If she doesn’t pay attention to the exposure time or to the high frequency radiation in the places she goes, extremely severe symptoms can occur and cause permanent and constantly worsening damage to nervous, immune, joint, digestive and muscle systems.

She denounces a state scandal and is in thought with all the electrohypersensitive people who cannot endure these damaging Swiss waves and therefore cannot take part in the demonstration. The state must take responsibility and support the electrohypersensitive.

The intolerance to electromagnetic waves is a syndrome of environmental disability “Society itself has become blind and tenacious in its use of technologies that are unsuitable for life”. Finally, on 5G: “Where will electrohypersensitive people go if the radiation sources are multiplied everywhere by 5G and IOT? What happens to public health? What about all other living creatures?

Hans-Ulrich Jakob

in Rally
An installation is considered acceptable
if less than 10% of the population is disturbed in its well-being.

Hans-Ulrich Jakob. Electrical engineer IUT, President of Gigaherz.

Thank you very much for coming in such numbers to my birthday party. This morning at 4:30, I turned 81 exactly.

As probably the oldest person in this federal square, I would like to send you a message that dates back to 1996, when our government first had to look at the limits of electromagnetic fields.

In 1996, Swiss Radio International decided to reorganize the short-wave radio station in Schwarzenburg. Because previously, two scientific studies had shown that in the irradiated areas around the transmitter there were:

  • 5 times more people with sleep disorders
  • 4 times more depressed people
  • 3 times more cancer patients
  • 2 times more cases of diabetes than in non-irradiated areas.

And this at field strengths between 0.4 and 4V/m. This corresponds roughly to the current exposure of mobile phone transmitters.

However, since the so-called renovation at the time concealed a strengthening of the system by a factor of 5 instead of a reduction, the leaders decided to issue the following decree:

“An installation is considered acceptable if less than 10% of the population is disturbed in its well-being. Renovations are only necessary if more than 25% of the population is seriously affected. Sleep disorders are not considered as damage, but only as a nuisance.”

What is written here is a quote from the environmental report of the time to the Federal Council.

Although the transmitter had to be interrupted following a national revolt in 1998, this absurdity of 10 and 25% became bogged down in the subsequent judicial practice.

On 30 August 2000, the Federal Court issued a first judgment against the Federal Council’s ordinance on non-ionising radiation in the field of mobile radiocommunications:

“Limit values should not be determined on the basis of medical aspects, but on the basis of economic viability and technical feasibility”.

On 8.2.2001, the Aargau Administrative Court doubled its judgment with the following verdict: “The Federal Law on Environmental Protection is not an impediment law, but a measurement law. Demand for some products should not be prohibited, but should be met by some risk reduction.”

And on 5.3.2001, the Bernese Administrative Court stated: “The population is not entitled to zero risk. Limit values are only used to keep damage within reasonable limits.”

Dear colleagues and fellow citizens: These damages have never been justified and will never be! Let us finally put an end to this absurdity!

Patricia Bechaalany

in Rally
Why is it that in the field of electro-magnetic waves, consumer information is completely absent, even though its side effects are considered frequent?

Entrepreneur specialized in the field of health, member of the frequencia committee


Here is an example of a common drug with a marketing authorization that involves a range of tests, including non-toxicity and safety.

Here are the different side effects observed:

Frequent side effects (1 in 100 cases): gastrointestinal disorders, decreased responsiveness, etc

Occasional side effects that may occur in more than 1 in 1000 cases, but less than 1 in 100 cases: hypersensitivity reaction, insomnia, anxiety…

Rare side effects (more than 1 case per 10,000) but less than 1 case per 1000: aseptic meningitis, angina, depression, confusion, visual impairment, etc.

Very rare side effects (less than 1 case per 10,000)

Psychotic states, heart failure…etc.

These few side effects are information for patients in relation to a widely used drug. As you can see, there is an obligation to put all the side effects found, whether they affect 1 in 100 cases or less than 1 in 10,000 cases.

So my big question is: Why is it that in the field of electromagnetic waves, non-ionizing radiation, consumer information is totally absent? However, electrohypersensitive people constitute 5% of the population… ok let’s take the recognized minimum figure… 1% of the population: this represents 1 case in 100 which in the field of medicine is considered as “frequent side effects”.

Why are side effects not taken seriously and denigrated in this way in the field of waves? There are 2 weights 2 measures. And the precautionary principle is swept away with a flick of the wrist when NEVER will you see a drug put on the market without having first proven its non-toxicity.

Stop telling us that electro-sensitive people represent only a tiny part of the population when we see that the same figure of 1% is considered as frequent side effects in medicine!!!!

In addition in this example you have the choice to consume a drug or not… you don’t have that luxury with the waves!

There is a huge inconsistency in the authorities!

The big question arises! Are mobile phone operators above the law?

Until February of this year, although very health conscious, I was absolutely unaware of the problem of electromagnetic pollution that we unknowingly generate in our habitat. I thought to myself that if I wasn’t informed when I was paying attention to everything related to health, how were others informed? Well, they’re not! The majority of the population is unaware of the electro-magnetic pollution it generates. Perhaps if the information were as accurate and visible as it is in other areas such as (food, pharmaceuticals, smoke, alcohol, etc.), consumer behaviour would change…but this goes against the financial objectives of many industries and operators.

Worse, operators lie to us with impunity!

While browsing the Swisscom and Sunrise sites, it is disarming to see the numerous false statements or worse to see how they try to manipulate the public to present 5G as THE be all end all solution for the environment, the economy, development, etc.

The public is sensitive to bees…they will put a beautiful picture of a beekeeper with bees by putting a text that has nothing to do with the subject but the public will simply remember the image of bees with the mention “5G Vision” in a positive light.

They present 5G as a solution for “good food, good conscience”.

All these arguments are studied to manipulate your mind but made according to the standards!

Who are we kidding?

Isn’t it disgusting to see Sunrise promote widely: 5G: Guaranteeing the protection of health and the environment “when there is uncertainty all over the world about this? Worse still: while the Federal Council admits that more than half of the population is concerned about the waves emitted by mobile phones, Sunrise completely downplays this fear by publishing that “this non-ionizing radiation is a concern for some representatives of environmental organizations who fear potential harmful effects on health”. We are not talking about some representatives of organizations but about more than 50% of the population!

Operators shout out loud and clear that 90% of the irradiation is done via mobile phones and only 10% via fixed antennas, thus absolving themselves of any responsibility and justifying the importance of building new antennas! It’s like saying that a cigarette is not toxic until it’s smoked! That cars don’t pollute until they’re driven, that plastic doesn’t pollute until it’s in nature… but in these last 3 cases, we have a choice to consume or not… whereas with the waves, we don’t have a choice!

The 10% of antennae emissions argument does not stand since antennas are set up to allow mobile phones to transmit and receive.

We cannot just make the consumer responsible for a tool that is essential for private, social and professional life. On the one hand, we are presented with all the possible developments at this level and then we are blamed for the excessive use of the devices and accused of being responsible for our own irradiation.

Our daily lives have been organized and cleverly orchestrated to ensure our dependency on these devices. We are bombarded with ads and messages about the usefulness of connected devices and then operators want to forfreit liability by simply saying that it is up to us to manage the use of phones and devices?

The basic source of non-ionizing radiation is still the fixed antenna that will allow all other devices to be connected!

They are 100% responsible and must assume all side effects related to non-ionizing radiation regardless of the daily use rate of the equipment unless they make the consumer responsible by:

  • clear, visible and preventive information on the use of devices connected in large format on each packaging carton (and not written in very small or worse hidden on an informative website). For example: write on the box of a smartphone

o “Be aware that when you use your phone, you irradiate yourself 10 times more than by a fixed antenna”…”.

o May cause electrohypersensitivity (which will ruin your life)

o Strongly discouraged for children under 12 years of age

o Strongly discouraged for pregnant women

o All these recommendations must appear on the packaging in a visible manner, as for cigarettes.

  • Providing efficient databases accessible to everyone at any time on the actual and real-time emission rate of the antenna near our homes … but again this is a serious risk for operators. Imagine if this option could prove the correlation between a person’s physical symptoms and the increase in emission values!
  • Without all these precautions, we risk finding ourselves in the same situation as with cigarettes, where the tobacco industry said it ignored the risks and now has to pay billions for the victims. The situation is even much worse. We have the choice to smoke or not wheras with the waves, we undergo a forced irradiation… all the more reason to visibly record the precautions for use.
  • Are there not already several lawsuits against smartphone manufacturers for endangering consumer health with emissions that are far too high?
  • What are our authorities waiting for to act? On the one hand, they shoot machine guns at small companies that have dared to market a harmless natural product with the sole crime of an unauthorized “therapeutic indication” known on the packaging as a loud and clear cry for consumer protection, and on the other hand, they minimize the proven risks of 5G on the pretext that Science has so far been unable to prove them.
  • The strongest reason and always the best….really pitiful that even today Justice is still only the hypocritical name for force, time and again proving a certain Jean de la Fontaine right: “Depending on whether you are powerful or miserable, court judgements will render you white or black”.

Let’s act together today to make a difference!



Switch The Language

    Rebgasse 46 | 4058 Basel | Schweiz