Guest Registration in Switzerland: Duties and Practice

On the evening before check-in, a couple tells the operator that an adult friend will be joining them. The reservation is paid in full, yet no personal details have been provided for the additional guest. The booking platform also shows that it collected a tourist levy. Has the operator now met the registration requirement?

No. A reservation, a police guest report, a tourist levy, and any extra identity screening are distinct processes. Treating them as one often leaves missing information that comes to light only when the guest arrives or an authority inspects the records. Before launch, each property therefore needs a concise, location-specific procedure: who must be reported, which information is required, the applicable deadline and reporting channel, and the retention period for each category of records.

Start with the rules for the property's location

Federal law sets the baseline. Article 16 of the Foreign Nationals and Integration Act (FNIA) requires anyone providing paid accommodation to foreign nationals to report them to the competent cantonal authority. Hotels are not the only businesses covered. The Federal Office for Housing's guidance expressly includes private hosts who occasionally let an apartment for payment through a booking platform.

Implementation belongs to the cantons. They select the responsible office and reporting channel and may introduce further requirements. As a result, a form accepted in one place may be insufficient elsewhere.

A new operator should not borrow a guest-registration routine from a colleague in another canton. Confirm the procedure directly with the responsible police service, municipality, or reporting office. Keep a record of that contact, the portal access, mandatory fields, applicable deadline, method for corrections, and backup person if the person responsible is absent. A property outside Switzerland requires a fresh assessment. The comparison of Switzerland and neighboring countries shows why a portfolio cannot safely use one registration rule in every jurisdiction.

Determine who must be reported and who completes the report

The federal requirement concerns paid accommodation supplied to foreign nationals. Nationality is the relevant criterion, rather than the guest's billing address or residence. A Swiss address does not remove a foreign national from the federal scope. Cantonal rules may extend reporting to Swiss guests as well.

The State Secretariat for Migration directives on the FNIA, section 3.1.3, state that accommodation providers must report guests immediately. They apply the duty both to regular accommodation businesses and to occasional private rentals for payment. The accommodation provider must make sure that the registration form is completed correctly and signed.

A platform may pass on data, collect a tourist levy, or provide an identity check, but these services do not transfer responsibility for the cantonal guest report. A corporate reservation changes nothing in that respect. The name of the company and the details of the person who booked cannot replace the personal data of those who actually occupy the accommodation.

Assign responsibility for each stay. Before arrival, the named person checks whether all reportable guests have been recorded, requests any missing details, and confirms that submission can be made through the approved channel. A third-party service provider should have access only to the information required for its task. The guide to roles and access rights explains how that principle applies to keys, access codes, and sensitive information.

Ask for the information the applicable procedure requires

Under the current wording of Article 18 of the Ordinance on Admission, Period of Stay and Employment (ASEO), a foreign guest must present an identity document. The accommodation provider completes the registration form using the information in the document, and the guest signs it. Cantonal implementation still governs the operating process. Digital pre-registration can collect details before arrival, but an online form created by the operator proves neither that the required comparison took place nor that the authority received a valid report.

There is no exhaustive national list of every field used in practice. Common fields are last name, first name, nationality, date of birth, arrival date, and departure date. A local procedure may also require an address, identity-document information, country of origin, purpose of travel, accommodation category, or details of accompanying guests. Operators should resist adding every field used somewhere in Switzerland to every form. Collect the data required by the local procedure or for another clearly defined operational purpose.

The State Secretariat for Migration directives provide a narrow simplification for married couples traveling together and for parents accompanied by their children. For the hotel registration form described in the directives, the personal details of one spouse or parent and the number of family members are sufficient. Other relatives and unrelated companions require individual registration forms. That exception should not be extended without verification to tourist levies, guest cards, or stricter cantonal rules.

Tell the guest plainly who needs to provide information, what is missing, which document must be shown at check-in, and when the details are due. At arrival, reconcile the people present with the data collected, compare the necessary information with the identity document, obtain any required signature, and submit the report through the confirmed channel. A change in the number of occupants or in the departure date may require one or more records to be corrected.

On August 26, 2026, the Federal Council opened a consultation on digitizing accommodation reporting. The proposal would allow electronic submission without the guest's signature if the accommodation provider compares the data with the identity document presented. Consultation remains open until November 27, 2026. On the review date of this text, the proposal had not entered into force and could not yet be relied upon as a simplification.

Handle missing information without inventing it

A message such as “registration incomplete” gives little help. State the exact gap instead: “The date of birth for the second adult is still missing. Please add it through the registration link, or contact us if the form is not working.” Offer an accessible alternative, such as completing the registration with assistance on arrival.

Different causes call for different responses. A defective link is a technical problem. A name that differs from the reservation may simply mean that the booker and occupant are different people. An explicit refusal to supply legally required data needs a decision from the person who holds that authority within the operation. That person applies the local reporting procedure, the booking terms, and the relevant law. A failed upload alone does not automatically mean that every affected reservation may be canceled or access denied.

The accommodation provider retains responsibility when the guest ignores a reminder. As the deadline approaches, assign a backup person and document the next step. If it has already passed, obtain the missing information promptly and submit or correct the report under the verified procedure. Keep the real completion time. Fabricated details and backdating cannot cure a late report.

When the authority's portal is unavailable, record the time of the attempt, the error shown, and any communication with the responsible office. The fallback procedure should also prevent a duplicate report from being filed for the same guest when the portal is available again. Breach of the reporting duty may lead to a fine under Article 120 FNIA. Only the competent authority can determine whether a breach occurred and what further consequences the individual case may have.

A tourist levy and a police guest report serve different purposes

It is understandable that a new host might view every local form and charge as a single registration. The processes are nevertheless distinct. Tourist levies fund tourism services, while a guest card provides defined benefits. Reporting under immigration law has another purpose and its own legal route. Some information may be reused lawfully across them, but finishing one process gives no assurance that the others are complete.

According to cantonal information, Basel-Stadt levies CHF 4.20 per person per night, subject to the stated exceptions. Airbnb pays the guest tax directly for eligible reservations made through its platform. The operator must still supply the required guest information and issue the BaselCard. Basel's instructions for Airbnb operators in Basel identify nine details for reporting, whereas the BaselCard can be created from a smaller data set. The existence of a guest card therefore cannot be used as proof that the registration form is complete.

For a direct booking, collection through Airbnb cannot be assumed. The cantonal information places responsibility for collecting and remitting the guest tax on the operator unless another recognized arrangement applies. Where the platform has already collected the amount, the guest must not be charged a second time.

Basel's published material gives inconsistent timing. Section 35 of the Hospitality Act requires complete and truthful records to be made daily. The general BaselCard guide gives 6:00 a.m. on the following day, while the separate Airbnb instructions give 11:59 p.m. on the date of departure. Ask Basel Tourism to confirm which time governs the initial entry through the operator's portal and which one applies to later additions. Publication of two times does not allow the operator to choose whichever is more convenient.

Andermatt uses a different method for its accommodation levy. The municipality's Tourism Regulations calculate the amount for second homes, vacation apartments, and vacation houses from net living area. Article 10 sets CHF 14 per square meter each year and a rate of 100 percent for Andermatt; Article 11 provides for adjustments based on inflation. The charge is therefore not based on the number of guest-nights actually spent. It leaves the federal reporting obligation intact when foreign nationals receive paid accommodation. The police procedure in the Canton of Uri needs separate confirmation.

Give every additional check a defined reason

The statutory guest report should not be confused with voluntary or risk-based identity checks. Depending on the operator and contract, document validation, facial comparison, or verification of a phone number may be useful. Before adopting any of them, specify the risk being addressed, the data required, the person who evaluates the outcome, and the fallback if the technology fails. An obligation to compare data with an identity document is not general authority to keep a full copy forever.

In a corporate booking, a business check, commonly called KYB, may examine the company that booked, the authority of its representative, or the recipient of the invoice. The employees staying at the property still require their own guest registration. Checks on companies and beneficial owners should not be added to every guest form without a justified purpose.

A sanctions review cannot be completed on the basis of a similar name alone. A reviewer must compare a possible match against additional identifiers and then assess the transaction under the relevant sanctions ordinance. SECO states that companies and other affected persons remain responsible for complying with the Swiss measures applicable to them. Its search for sanctioned subjects is a research tool; it does not identify possible ownership or control relationships. A plausible match therefore requires review by a qualified person before any conclusion is drawn.

The discussion of digital guest identity examines in more detail the distinctions among proof of identity, guest registration forms, and digital wallets.

Set retention periods by data category

No single period governs an entire guest file. Registration forms, tourist-levy documentation, accounting records, and information from additional screening can all have different purposes and legal requirements. For guest control by licensed accommodation establishments in the Canton of Lucerne, the Lucerne Police specify five years. That is not a general Swiss deadline, nor does it extend by itself to passport copies, selfies, or communications.

Article 6 FADP requires proportionate processing and the destruction or anonymization of personal data once it is no longer needed for its purpose. A deletion schedule should list, for every category, the purpose, starting event, retention period, recipients, and access rights. A pending dispute or statutory duty may justify keeping a particular category longer; it provides no blanket reason to retain everything in the file.

Biometric information used to identify a person uniquely is sensitive personal data. Before selecting a new verification provider, examine the countries where processing occurs, subprocessors, deletion periods, access arrangements, and the alternative available to a guest who cannot use the service. If the proposed processing is likely to create a high risk to personality or fundamental rights, a data protection impact assessment is generally required.

For day-to-day operations, start with a verified, location-specific procedure and assign a backup person. According to Oprivia’s published module description, the platform can, within the agreed and released scope, link required information to a stay, flag missing or conflicting data, and assign each follow-up to an owner with a deadline and supporting evidence. The operator and its professional advisers remain responsible for choosing the applicable rules and a lawful reporting channel. A status of “complete” is meaningful only after the operator has defined the conditions for completion at that location.