Latest Judgments of the Federal Court

Summary of the Facts

The Kosovo national A.A.________ submitted a request for the issuance of a residence permit citing a need for care and a special dependency relationship with her son, a Swiss citizen living in Switzerland. The Migration Office of the Canton of Lucerne repeatedly rejected the request, as did the cantonal appellate bodies. A.A.________ eventually filed a complaint in public law matters and a subsidiary constitutional complaint to the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant A.________ filed a complaint against a judgment of the Tribunal du travail valaisan of October 29, 2024, with the Chambre civile of the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Valais. It declared the complaint inadmissible on April 29, 2025, as it did not meet the requirements of Swiss civil procedural law (Art. 311 para. 1 and Art. 321 para. 1 CPC) regarding justification. A.________ subsequently filed a complaint with the Federal Court on June 2, 2025.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ SA, which operates in the real estate sector, leased commercial premises to Z.C.________ SA, with Z.C.________ SA, Z.D.________ SA, and B.________ acting as guarantors. A dispute arose regarding B.________'s obligation to provide a guarantee. A.________ SA obtained a payment order against B.________, who filed an objection. Subsequently, A.________ SA requested provisional legal expeditiousness, which was rejected in the lower court decisions.

Summary of the Facts

The applicant A.________ requests the revision of the non-admission judgment of the Federal Court (8C_340/2024) of July 16, 2024. The non-admission judgment concerned a complaint against the judgment of the Insurance Court of the Canton of Aargau of May 13, 2024. The applicant argues that the Federal Court made errors in the non-admission judgment and did not consider essential medical reports individually.

The complainant A.________, a presumed national of Sierra Leone, was repeatedly convicted of various offenses, including drug trafficking, and subjected to expulsion. After returning to Switzerland, he was prohibited by the police commissioner of the Canton of Geneva on January 28, 2025, from leaving the municipality of U.________ for a period of twelve months. After several judicial instances, A.________ contests before the Federal Court that the violation of a cantonally established 96-hour decision deadline by the first instance court should lead to the annulment of the measure.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant received a building permit for a garage extension and a retaining wall from the Mettauertal municipal council in the simplified procedure, which was later recognized as partially located in the waterway of the Widbächlis. After the cantonal approval for the claim of the waterway was lacking and the complainant neither submitted a subsequent building application nor accepted the proposed agreement, the Department for Construction, Transport and Environment of the Canton of Aargau rejected the building application, tolerated the retaining wall until the realization of a stream opening, and ordered an ownership restriction in the land register. The cantonal appellate bodies dismissed the complaints of the complainant.

Summary of the Facts

Bankruptcy was opened against J1.________ GmbH on October 28, 2010. The off-duty bankruptcy administrator offered the creditors claims for assignment according to Art. 260 SchKG in the creditors' circular. Two assignment requests were not addressed or were rejected by him. Complaints against these decisions as well as against the creditors' committee were submitted to the Cantonal Court of Zug and were partially dismissed. The judgment of the Cantonal Court was contested by the complainants before the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

An Italian citizen, A.________, who has lived in Switzerland with an EU/EFTA residence permit since 2013, applied in 2018 for the renewal of this permit as well as for the granting of a settlement permit. The cantonal authority refused the application due to his criminal convictions and the lack of evidence of real and effective employment. The Federal Court confirmed the decision of the lower courts.

Summary of the Facts

The mother and father of the children C.________ and D.________ have separated. The children initially lived with their father in Sweden, who had sole custody according to Swedish law. Following a Swedish court ruling on July 23, 2024, the joint parental custody of the parents was restored. However, the father had taken the children to Switzerland before the legal validity of the judgment. The mother subsequently filed a request for the return of the children to Sweden with the Cantonal Court of St. Gallen, which was dismissed. She then lodged a complaint with the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The Egyptian national A.________, who received an EU/EFTA residence permit through marriage to a Spanish citizen, applied in 2024 for its extension. The complainant's wife had not lived in Switzerland since January 2022, and her settlement permit expired in September 2022. After an unsuccessful cantonal appellate process, the complainant turned to the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ SA and its board member F.________ filed a criminal complaint on August 1, 2024, against several individuals and a company for breach of loyalty, fraud, and corruption. The allegations relate to incidents between May 2015 and April 2019 concerning consultancy for a customs-related tobacco import dispute. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Geneva decided on January 21, 2025, not to proceed with the complaint. The Chambre pénale de recours of the Cour de justice of the Canton of Geneva declared F.________'s complaint inadmissible and dismissed the complaint raised by A.________ SA.

Summary of the Facts

The applicant, A.________, requests the revision of the Federal Court judgment 9C_147/2025 of March 31, 2025, which did not proceed with his complaint against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Schaffhausen of December 10, 2024. The revision request is based on procedural errors and new evidence. The Federal Court examines the admissibility of the request and concludes that neither a statutory ground for revision exists nor have the required deadlines been met.

Summary of the Facts

The building authority plans to demolish an existing residential building in Spiez and construct a three-family house with a parking garage on a plot located in a local preservation area. The residential building houses 75 nesting places of a swiftlet colony. Various protective and replacement measures for the breeding sites are mandated. Neighbors of the building plot filed objections, which were ultimately litigated before the Federal Court regarding the protection of the swiftlets and the compatibility of the construction project with nature and heritage protection law.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant had repeatedly submitted claims due to back pain to the disability insurance of the Canton of Fribourg, which were each rejected by the administration as a significant change in the health situation could not be plausibly demonstrated. After further medical reports and a new application on November 20, 2020, the administration refused to address it. The cantonal insurance chamber of Fribourg confirmed this decision. The present complaint is directed against this final decision.

Summary of the Facts

The complainants A.________ and B.________ filed a complaint against a letter from the president of the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen dated May 14, 2025. The Federal Court required them to pay a cost advance of 800 CHF within a deadline, under joint liability. Despite a non-extendable grace period, the cost advance was not paid. Court notifications could not be delivered at the provided address but were deemed delivered according to Art. 44 para. 2 BGG.

Summary of the Facts

The parties conducted two parallel complaint proceedings before the Federal Court (5A_399/2024 and 5A_404/2024) regarding the inheritance procedure concerning the estate of G.________. After they reached an out-of-court settlement, they withdrew their complaints.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant A.________ applied to the Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern for the revision of the non-admission decision of September 24, 2024, as well as an interim decision of August 7, 2024, regarding free legal assistance. Both decisions are related to her complaint against the refusal of citizenship by the municipality of Lyss. The Administrative Court did not admit the revision request. A.________ then appealed to the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The Federal Court examined the admissibility and legality of the building permit for a mobile phone antenna in Pfäffikon. The association A.________ and several other individuals were involved as complainants and demanded the annulment of the building permit and the referral of the matter for re-evaluation. Central was the compliance with the limit values of the ordinance on the protection against non-ionizing radiation (NISV) and their compatibility with higher-ranking law.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant, a co-heir, conducted various proceedings related to the division of the estate of his deceased father, which are pending before French and Swiss courts. The debt enforcement office had seized his share of the inheritance. The complainant argued that actions of the debt enforcement office and the representative of the authorities deprived him of rights under Art. 609 ZGB, particularly concerning the division of the estate and the possibility of a reduction action. The Cantonal Court of Zug did not admit his complaint as the supervisory authority over debt enforcement and bankruptcy, as it considered itself not competent.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant, an Indian citizen, lived in Switzerland since 2013 with various residence permits, partly due to marital relationships. After the second divorce in 2022, he was granted an extension of the residence permit until 2023. A request for settlement permit submitted by him was rejected by the migration office, as the authorities assumed that he had conducted a sham marriage and maintained a parallel relationship. These decisions were confirmed by the security directorate and the Administrative Court of Zurich. The complainant then appealed to the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant A.________, who had taken over all assets of C.________ SA, demands damages from the respondent B.________ SA for alleged errors in accounting and tax consulting in favor of C.________ SA for the years 2005 to 2007. In particular, it is claimed that the capital gain from the sale of the property "zzz" was taxed twice and that interest claims for loans to D.________ Sàrl were not considered, causing additional tax burdens and preventing a tax loss carryforward.

Summary of the Facts

The insured, A.________, born in 1966 and a draftsman, has not engaged in any employment since 2001 and applied for benefits from the disability insurance on March 3, 2017. Based on various medical reports, including an initial psychiatric assessment (2019) and a second psychiatric assessment (2021), the responsible cantonal insurance office concluded that the insured was entitled to a full disability pension only for the period from October 1, 2017, to March 31, 2019. The Cantonal Court of Vaud confirmed this decision. The insured appealed to the Federal Court, demanding uninterrupted pension entitlement from October 1, 2017, or alternatively a renewed instruction.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant filed a complaint in criminal matters against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Zurich. The Federal Court ordered her to pay a cost advance. After the deadlines set expired without payment of the advance, the Federal Court did not enter into the complaint.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant filed a complaint on May 26, 2025, in civil matters regarding a seizure certificate of January 30, 2025. The Federal Court had granted extensions for the payment of the cost advance before the substantive examination of the complaint. On July 7, 2025, the complainant withdrew the complaint.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ is accused of a qualified violation of the Narcotics Act and other offenses. In the course of the criminal investigation, data carriers were secured from a vehicle rented by him. A.________ requested the sealing of these data carriers, which were later requested to be unsealed by the juvenile prosecution. The coercive measures court of the district of Winterthur granted the unsealing request. A.________ appealed to the Federal Court, arguing that unsealing would cause irreparable harm and violate protected interests.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant, a taxi driver, accuses a police officer of having physically injured him during a control. He requested authorization to prosecute the officer, which was denied by the Cantonal Court of Zurich. The complainant then appealed to the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ exceeded the posted speed limit by 31 km/h on the highway with his vehicle. The Regional Court of Bern Jura-Seeland sentenced him to a fine of CHF 600.--. The Cantonal Court of Bern confirmed the first-instance judgment, after which A.________ appealed to the Federal Court. He requested the complete annulment of the judgment and his acquittal.

Summary of the Facts

A.________, an emeritus professor at the University of St. Gallen, filed a criminal complaint against B.________, the administrative director of the University of St. Gallen, for trespassing, misappropriation, coercion, and abuse of office. The background was the eviction from an office he rented and the handling of his book collection in 2023 and early 2024. The prosecution chamber of the Canton of St. Gallen denied the authorization for prosecution, which A.________ contested before the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The Department of Economic Affairs of the Canton of Solothurn granted A.________ AG a hardship contribution of CHF 219,800 in 2021. The condition was that no dividends or bonuses could be distributed for three years. In 2023, the department found that a dividend distribution had occurred and demanded the repayment of the entire amount. The complainant disputed the distribution and raised formal and substantive deficiencies.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ was sentenced by the Basel-Stadt Court of Appeals on April 20, 2023, for various offenses, including a quantitatively qualified violation of the Narcotics Act, in second instance. The judgment included a prison sentence of 20 months, a fine, a penalty, and an expulsion from the country for 5 years. The Federal Court dismissed the complaint against it (Judgment 7B_1056/2023 of March 26, 2025). With a revision request, the applicant refers to new evidence, including medical reports that illuminate his personal situation and associated risks concerning the expulsion.