News

New Federal Court rulings from 25.07.2025

Latest Judgments of the Federal Court

Here you will find the most recent judgments of the Federal Court (BGer) from bger.ch. For the first three judgments, we provide detailed summaries including facts, considerations, and dispositives. For the other judgments, you will find a summary of the facts. The complete summaries of all judgments are available on the portal of Lexplorer. There, you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest judgments tailored to your areas of law.

7B_559/2025: Decision on the Application for Lifting the Preventive Detention

Summary of the Facts

The complainant, an incarcerated Swiss citizen with multiple prior convictions between 1994 and 2018, was originally sentenced in 2006 to a measure of execution (internment) according to Art. 64 of the Penal Code. In 2016, the measure was converted into a stationary therapeutic measure under Art. 59 of the Penal Code. The extension of this measure was last ordered in March 2023 until 2025. In May 2025, the competent cantonal court extended the measure until 2028, ordering preventive detention until the conclusion of the appeal proceedings. The complainant challenged the preventive detention before the Federal Court and requested its lifting as well as a determination of the legal violation.

Summary of the Considerations

The Federal Court deemed the appeal in criminal matters admissible according to Art. 78 BGG and considered it. The complainant alleged a violation of his right to regular review of preventive detention according to Art. 31 para. 3 and 4 of the Federal Constitution as well as Art. 5 para. 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Federal Court recognized that the cantonal authority had not acted legally sufficient, as there was no valid legal basis for the extension of detention from the date of May 7, 2025. The complainant was thus temporarily in preventive detention without a valid title. The Federal Court established that the complainant's right to be heard had been violated. He was not timely provided with the judicial statements of the public prosecutor, which denied him the opportunity to reply. This violation of the right to be heard leads, irrespective of the substantive examination, to the annulment of the cantonal decision. Due to its limited review authority, the Federal Court could not make a final decision on preventive detention and referred the matter back to the lower court for a new decision.

Summary of the Dispositive

The appeal was partially upheld, the contested order was annulled, and the case was referred back to the lower court for a new decision.


2C_26/2025: Judgment on the Subsidiary Constitutional Complaint Regarding State Liability

Summary of the Facts

The complainant requested compensation of CHF 5,000 for physical and mental trauma as well as the unlawful seizure of his car key by the Lucerne police in connection with a police control. The District Court of Lucerne dismissed the claim, as did the Cantonal Court of Lucerne the subsequent appeal. The Federal Court treated the submission as a subsidiary constitutional complaint.

Summary of the Considerations

- E. 1: The Federal Court examines the admissibility of the appeal and decided that the appeal in public law matters is excluded, as the dispute value of CHF 30,000 has not been reached and no legal question of fundamental importance arises. The submission is treated as a subsidiary constitutional complaint. - E. 2: It is explained that in constitutional complaint proceedings, only the violation of constitutional rights can be raised. Appellate criticism or inadequately substantiated complaints are rejected by the court. - E. 3: The lower court reasonably established that there is no evidence for the behavior of the police officers criticized by the complainant and that the alleged trauma suffered is not severe enough to justify a claim for compensation according to Art. 47 of the Code of Obligations. - E. 4: The complainant could not provide sufficient justification for a violation of constitutional rights due to an allegedly unlawful treatment during the police control. - E. 5: The seizure of the car key was considered by the lower court as not being the subject of the proceedings, which the Federal Court confirms. - E. 6: Complaints regarding alleged violations of road traffic legislation are inadmissible in constitutional complaint proceedings.

Summary of the Dispositive

The complaint is dismissed, and the court costs are imposed on the complainant.


9C_459/2024: Judgment on the Deductibility of Losses from Self-Employment

Summary of the Facts

The judgment addresses the question of the deductibility of losses from self-employment for the cantonal state and municipal taxes of the Canton of Solothurn as well as for the direct federal tax for the tax periods 2016-2019. The definitive assessment had denied the deductions due to a lack of profit-making intent. The objections and the subsequent appeal to the Cantonal Tax Court of Solothurn were dismissed, after which the complainants appealed to the Federal Court. The Federal Court reviewed the legal classification of the financial activities as well as the procedural handling by the lower court.

Summary of the Considerations

The Federal Court examines its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the appeal, which is deemed admissible. It is established that there is no "zero assessment" and thus a sufficiently legal interest exists. The application of federal legal provisions and harmonization law is confirmed, whereby constitutional rights are also only examined in the case of qualified complaints. The Federal Court explains the requirements for the tax recognition of self-employment. It is emphasized that the pursuit of profit does not necessarily require the achievement of a profit, and that even a multi-year loss-making intention is generally not sufficient to qualify the activity as hobby. The present assessments are not classified as complete discretionary assessments, but as discretionary surcharges ("traditional assessment"). The cantonal authority is accused of not having sufficiently examined the documents submitted by the taxpayers during the objection procedure. The Federal Court states that the provisions of the Tax Harmonization Act must be applied analogously to state and municipal taxes. The referral to the lower court is considered a complete victory in terms of costs and compensation arrangements.

Summary of the Dispositive

The complaint is partially upheld, the previous judgment is annulled, and the case is referred back to the lower court for a new decision. Court costs are imposed, and a party compensation is established.


5A_567/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint Regarding Treatment Without Consent

Summary of the Facts

The complainant was treated at the B.________ clinic due to a welfare placement. The medical management ordered treatment without consent on June 16, 2025. The subsequent complaint against the measure was dismissed by the Cantonal Court of Graubünden on July 3, 2025. In a submission on July 14, 2025, the complainant addressed the Federal Court.


2C_95/2025: Judgment on Non-Promotion at an IT Secondary School

Summary of the Facts

The complainant A.________ was not promoted due to an average grade of 3.9 for the first semester of the 2023/2024 school year. A further repetition was not possible as he had already repeated the second school year. His complaints to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports of the Canton of Aargau and to the Administrative Court were unsuccessful. During the complaint proceedings, he was able to continue attending school due to the granted suspensive effect and provided subsequent performances. With the complaint to the Federal Court, he requests the annulment of the judgment of the Administrative Court and the recognition of the semester as passed.


9C_278/2025: Claim for Widow's Pension with Legal Continuation of Pension Suspension

Summary of the Facts

The complainant received a widow's pension from the AHV after the death of his wife, which was suspended in January 2018 when the youngest child turned 18. In October 2022, he requested the retroactive re-payment of the pension based on a judgment of the ECtHR, which was rejected by the compensation office and subsequently by the cantonal court.


7B_313/2025: Non-Admittance of the Complaint Against the Decision of the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of St. Gallen

Summary of the Facts

The complainant A.________ had previously submitted a complaint to the lower court, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of St. Gallen, concerning the waiver of procedural costs and the demand for a cost advance. The Department of Security and Justice of the Canton of St. Gallen had closed the appeal procedure as the cost advance was not paid. The Public Prosecutor's Office dismissed the complaint on March 31, 2025, to the extent it considered it.


7B_417/2025: Order for Withdrawal of a Complaint in Criminal Matters

Summary of the Facts

A.________ had submitted a complaint in criminal matters to the Federal Court on May 9, 2025, but indicated the withdrawal of the complaint on June 7, 2025, for process-economic and financial reasons.


7B_451/2023: Decision on Agreed Procedures Regarding Recusal and Authorization

Summary of the Facts

The complainant A.________ was involved in several civil disputes with B.________, which led to mutual criminal complaints. A.________ filed criminal complaints against various officials of the Canton of St. Gallen for allegations such as abuse of office and favoritism. He also requested that these persons recuse themselves and that an authorization for conducting a criminal procedure against them be granted. The lower court dismissed the requests for recusal and denied the authorization, which A.________ contested before the Federal Court.


7B_11/2024: Decision on a Complaint Regarding a Dismissal Order and Questions of Complaint Motivation

Summary of the Facts

The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Central Valais dismissed a criminal proceeding against B.________ on June 10, 2022, due to suspicion of fraud (Art. 146 of the Penal Code) for two reasons: failure to meet the elements of the offense, and reasons of opportunity (Art. 319 para. 1 lit. b and lit. e of the Criminal Procedure Code). A.________ filed a complaint against this dismissal order, which was declared inadmissible by the single judge of the Criminal Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Valais on November 20, 2023, due to insufficient justification of the complaint. A.________ brought the matter before the Federal Court and requested the annulment of the dismissal order and a new decision by the lower court.


7B_361/2025: Judgment Regarding Non-Initiation of a Criminal Investigation

Summary of the Facts

The complainant appealed to the Federal Court after his previous legal remedies against a non-initiation order of the Regional Public Prosecutor's Office Emmental-Oberaargau from February 24, 2025, were dismissed.


1C_176/2024: Public Building Law

Summary of the Facts

The C.________ GmbH applied for a building permit for the dismantling of a building and the construction of a multi-family house in Rotkreuz, municipality of Risch. Objections were raised against the granted permit and the exception permit for undercutting the water distance, particularly by the complainants, who are owners of an adjacent property. The municipal council of Risch dismissed the objections and confirmed the building permit. The Administrative Court of Zug dismissed the appeal against it.


1C_9/2025: Termination in Public Employment Law

Summary of the Facts

B.________ worked for the Hôpitaux A.________ since 2002 and was appointed as a civil servant in 2005. After an incident in August 2021, in which a child died after a faulty emergency call handling, he was accused of failing to follow the guidelines and repeated violations of the protocol. After an internal investigation and several hearings, his employment was terminated as of May 31, 2024. However, the lower court ordered his reemployment, as it deemed the dismissal unjustified in terms of proportionality.


7B_377/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint in Criminal Execution

Summary of the Facts

The complainant appealed against the non-admittance of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich to his complaint regarding a decision of the Justice Directorate of the Canton of Zurich from February 10, 2025. The Federal Court examined the complaint and decided not to admit it due to insufficient justification.


1C_568/2023: Dismissal of Proceedings Due to Objectless

Summary of the Facts

The A.________ SA, owner of a parcel in St. Moritz, submitted several building and project modification requests, which were granted. The neighbor B.________ subsequently requested access to building application documents. The A.________ SA appealed against the partially granted access to documents before the Federal Court. During the proceedings, the construction activity was completed, thereby eliminating the interest in legal protection. The Administrative Court therefore declared the matter as objectless.


7B_350/2025: Judgment on Non-Initiation Orders and Free Legal Aid

Summary of the Facts

The complainant A.________ filed six complaints in criminal matters against orders of the President of the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of St. Gallen from April 11, 2025. These orders concerned the non-initiation of the Public Prosecutor's Office of St. Gallen and the dismissal of the complainant's requests for free legal aid.


7B_441/2024: Legality of the Rejection of a Request for a New Judgment in Case of Absence at Hearings

Summary of the Facts

The complainant was convicted by the Geneva Police Court on July 18, 2023, for various offenses (including usurpation, unauthorized stay and employment of foreigners, and violation of AHV legislation) in an absence judgment to prison, fines, and a fee. After receiving the judgment, she requested a new procedure, which was rejected by the Police Court on December 20, 2023, and her appeal against this rejection was also dismissed by the cantonal Criminal Appeals Chamber on February 27, 2024. Before the Federal Court, she objected that her absence at the decisive hearing on June 27, 2023, was excusable due to a medical emergency.


7B_713/2024: Recusal Request Against the President of the Cantonal Court II in Proceedings BS 23/050

Summary of the Facts

The complainants A.A.________ and B.A.________ requested the recusal of the President of the Cantonal Court II, Daniela Widmer, in the course of proceedings before the Cantonal Court of Obwalden. They justified the request, among other things, with the alleged bias of the President of the Cantonal Court II due to her procedural conduct and institutional framework conditions. The Cantonal Court rejected this request to the extent it considered it. The complainants then filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Court.


2C_201/2024: Judgment on Non-Renewal of Residence Permit

Summary of the Facts

The North Macedonian national A.________ applied for the extension of his residence permit after his divorce from his Swiss wife B.________, based on a post-marital hardship case according to Art. 50 para. 1 lit. b of the Foreign Nationals Act. He claimed to have been a victim of domestic violence. The Migration Office did not extend the permit and expelled him. His legal remedies up to the Cantonal Court of Basel-Stadt were unsuccessful, after which he filed a complaint regarding public law matters with the Federal Court.


7B_252/2025: Inadmissibility of a Criminal Complaint

Summary of the Facts

The complainant reported her nephew for fraud in an inheritance matter. The Public Prosecutor's Office decided not to initiate proceedings. The complainant appealed against this decision to the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Valais, which rejected her submission. With a criminal complaint, she requested the Federal Court to annul the cantonal court decision and refer it back to the Public Prosecutor's Office for the initiation of criminal proceedings.


7B_273/2025: Judgment on the Recusal Request Against the President of the Cantonal Court

Summary of the Facts

A.A.________ repeatedly submitted recusal requests against the President of the Cantonal Court II of the Canton of Obwalden as well as against other members of the Cantonal Court. He also demanded the recusal of all judges of the Cantonal Court of Obwalden in various proceedings. The lower court rejected this to the extent it considered it. A.A.________ contested the decision of the Cantonal Court AB 24/016 from February 20, 2025, before the Federal Court, alleging a violation of the impartiality and presumption of innocence of court members.


7B_229/2025: Non-Admittance of the Complaint Due to Missing Cost Advance

Summary of the Facts

The complainant filed a complaint on March 11, 2025, against a decision of the Cantonal Court of Zurich, III. Criminal Chamber, regarding the non-initiation of a criminal case. The Federal Court requested the complainant to pay a cost advance, which was not provided despite a deadline extension.


1C_102/2025: Decision on Access to Files in a Disciplinary Procedure

Summary of the Facts

The complainant was employed as a secretary at the Criminal Court of the Canton of Ticino and felt bullied by a colleague. She reported the incident, which led to a disciplinary procedure against the reported colleague. This procedure was concluded, with administrative measures taken against the reported colleague. The complainant then requested access to the relevant files, especially the report of the appointed expert, in order to possibly initiate legal action. However, the responsible cantonal authorities denied her access, citing the lack of party status. She appealed against these decisions to the Federal Court.


7B_291/2025: Recusal Request Against the President of the Cantonal Court

Summary of the Facts

A.A.________ and B.A.________ filed a recusal request against the President of the Cantonal Court Dr. Stefan Keller as well as other members of the Cantonal Court of Obwalden in the context of several proceedings. The recusal request against all judges was dismissed by the Federal Criminal Court. They later renewed specific recusal requests against Dr. Keller, among other things based on an encounter at Lucerne station and alleged statements regarding family matters and violations of official secrecy. The lower court dismissed the recusal request against Dr. Keller to the extent it considered it.


7B_156/2025: Non-Initiation and Cost Consequences

Summary of the Facts

The Federal Court dealt with a complaint from A.________ AG against the non-initiation order of the Cantonal Public Prosecutor's Office of Aargau and the decision of the Cantonal Court of Aargau from January 31, 2025. The complainant failed to pay the required cost advance in a timely manner, despite being repeatedly informed that in case of non-payment, the complaint would not be admitted.


7B_416/2025: Order Regarding the Withdrawal of a Complaint in Criminal Matters

Summary of the Facts

A.________ filed a complaint in criminal matters against a decision of the Cantonal Court of Zurich, III. Criminal Chamber, on April 7, 2025. In a letter dated June 7, 2025, she stated the withdrawal of her complaint for process-economic and financial reasons.


7B_393/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint for Free Legal Aid and Rejection of the Withdrawal Request

Summary of the Facts

A. The complainant A.________ had filed a criminal complaint for defamation and slander against an employee of the State Chancellery Secretariat of the Canton of Vaud, which was suspended by the public prosecutor. B. His subsequent requests for free legal aid in connection with the complaint against the suspension order were dismissed by the cantonal criminal court. C. The complainant submitted a complaint to the Federal Court, which includes not only the free legal aid but also the rejection of the President of the II. Criminal Division and various side issues.


1C_542/2024: Judgment on a Dispute Regarding the Change of Use of Mandatory Parking Spaces

Summary of the Facts

The condominium owners' association "Im Unterdorf 10" applied for the change of use of two existing visitor parking spaces to residential parking spaces. The building committee of the municipality of Maur granted the change of use only for one of the two parking spaces and additionally imposed an obligation to conclude a servitude contract for the remaining visitor parking space. Subsequent cantonal legal remedy proceedings ultimately led to a decision by the Administrative Court, which abolished this obligation and ordered the approval for the change of use of both parking spaces. Both the municipality of Maur and several residents appealed against this judgment to the Federal Court.