Latest Rulings of the Federal Court
Here you will find the most recent rulings of the Federal Court (BGer) from bger.ch. For the first three rulings, we provide detailed summaries including facts, considerations, and dispositives. For the other rulings, you will find a summary of the facts. The complete summaries of all rulings are available on the portal of Lexplorer. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest rulings tailored to your areas of law.
5A_38/2024: Decision on a sequestration dispute
Summary of the facts
The case concerns the ordering and execution of a sequestration by the Locarno debt collection office. A.________ was obliged by the Canton of Solothurn to provide a guarantee for tax claims, and his assets were partially sequestrated. A.________ challenged the sequestration decision. The cantonal supervisory authority made a correction to the original ruling, which was subsequently challenged by complaint to the Federal Court.
Summary of the considerations
**E.1**: The Federal Court finds that the complaint is admissible, as it was submitted within the deadline and concerns a final decision of the cantonal supervisory authority. **E.2**: The cantonal supervisory authority had made a correction of its previous decision to rectify an obvious error in the dispositive. This correction is allowed under the relevant legal provisions. The appellant's criticism regarding an alleged violation of his right to be heard is rejected, as no hearing was required. **E.3**: In the substantive part, it is found that the corrected decision of the supervisory authority complies with legal requirements. The appellant's arguments against the fundamental legality of the sequestration are unfounded.
Summary of the dispositive
The complaint is dismissed, and court costs are imposed.
7B_319/2025: Non-admittance of a criminal complaint
Summary of the facts
The appellant filed a criminal complaint against a police officer for allegations of violation of privacy, simple bodily harm, and abuse of office in connection with a traffic stop. The public prosecutor ordered the non-admittance of the procedure, which was confirmed by the higher public prosecutor's office. The subsequent complaint to the High Court of the Canton of Aargau was submitted late and therefore not handled by decision of March 18, 2025. Before the Federal Court, the appellant requested the examination of the case without meeting the requirements for a legally sufficient justification of his submission.
Summary of the considerations
- **E.1:** The subject of the proceedings is exclusively the decision of the High Court of the Canton of Aargau of March 18, 2025. Extended requests from the appellant are inadmissible. - **E.2:** The appellant submitted the complaint late and acknowledged this himself. There is a lack of justification as to why the lower court should have acted incorrectly. - **E.3:** The appellant lacks the legitimacy to file a complaint, as no civil claims are asserted and the legal submission is substantively insufficient. The case law on justification requirements is applied. - **E.4:** Public law claims based on a state liability law do not establish civil claims within the meaning of Art. 81 BGG. Thus, the appellant lacks substantive legitimacy. - **E.5:** The appellant does not raise any formal objections that could be examined separately from the case. - **E.6:** The request for free legal assistance is dismissed due to the obvious hopelessness of the complaint.
Summary of the dispositive
The complaint was not handled, and the request for free legal assistance was dismissed. The appellant must bear court costs.
1C_162/2024: Decision of the Federal Court regarding noise reduction project of the municipality of Hägendorf
Summary of the facts
The Office for Transport and Civil Engineering of the Canton of Solothurn planned a noise reduction project for roads in the municipality of Hägendorf, which included noise-reducing surfaces and a speed limit of 30. However, the cantonal government decided to forgo a reduction of the maximum speed and granted exemptions for various properties. The Traffic Club of Switzerland (Section Solothurn) subsequently filed a complaint, which was dismissed by the Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn. The Traffic Club then turned to the Federal Court and requested more comprehensive noise protection measures as well as a referral of the case for further clarification.
Summary of the considerations
The Federal Court examines the jurisdiction and the admissibility requirements. It denies the complainant's standing in the context of the selfish association complaint, as it is not apparent that a large number of its members are regularly affected by the roads in dispute. However, the Federal Court recognizes a formal denial of justice by the lower court, as it did not sufficiently address the requests of the complainant, particularly the procurement of an expert opinion, and did not conduct a comprehensive assessment of the entire project perimeter. The Federal Court points out that the lower court must examine the relevant renovation measures more thoroughly and incorporate the statements of the Federal Office for the Environment (BAFU) regarding additional noise reduction from a speed limit of 30. It also criticizes the use of an outdated calculation model for noise measurement.
Summary of the dispositive
The complaint is upheld, the previous ruling is overturned, and the case is referred back. No court costs are incurred, and the canton must pay a party compensation.
7B_484/2025: Non-admittance order: Federal Court does not enter the complaint
Summary of the facts
The A.________ GmbH filed a complaint against a non-admittance order of the public prosecutor's office Limmattal/Albis. The lower court, the High Court of the Canton of Zurich, III. Criminal Chamber, dismissed this complaint. The complainant then turned to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
7B_44/2024: Ruling on the approval and usability of incidental findings from covert surveillance measures
Summary of the facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office II of the Canton of Zurich conducted a criminal proceeding against A.________ on suspicion of human trafficking, promotion of prostitution, and other offenses. In the course of the investigations, covert surveillance measures were carried out in 2013 and 2014, resulting in incidental findings. The use of these incidental findings was permitted in several approval decisions by the coercive measures court. A.________ challenged the last approval decision of August 29, 2019, which was dismissed by the High Court of the Canton of Zurich. She then turned to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
8C_28/2025: Ruling on the denial of a disability pension claim
Summary of the facts
A.________, born in 1967, suffered a stroke and registered with the IV office Lucerne for benefits on May 25, 2018. The IV office conducted extensive medical and occupational assessments, including a multidisciplinary report from MEDAS. It denied the claim for a disability pension with a decision dated September 18, 2023, as the degree of disability was only 30%. The Cantonal Court of Lucerne dismissed the appeal filed against it, as far as it examined it. With a complaint to the Federal Court, A.________ requested among other things the referral of the case for renewed examination and the granting of a disability pension.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
5A_482/2025: Decision regarding treatment without consent and custodial placement
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________ opposed a medical decision of the Tribunal for the Protection of Adults and Children of the Canton of Geneva, which provided for treatment without consent. The cantonal court, the Supervisory Chamber of the Cour de Justice Geneva, dismissed the complaint of the affected person. A.________ then filed a complaint with the Federal Court, claiming to exercise international functions without presenting a subject-related or legally sufficient objection against the findings regarding her mental health status or the application of Art. 434 para. 1 ZGB.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
7B_947/2024: Ruling on the non-admittance of a criminal investigation against a bank and employees
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________ had an account with B.________ SA since 2009, which was managed by an external asset manager (E.________). After significant financial losses, she filed a criminal complaint against E.________ and later against B.________ SA and its responsible individuals. The public prosecutor's office opened a criminal procedure against E.________, but did not initiate a criminal investigation against B.________ SA and its employees. The complaint of the complainant against the non-admittance was dismissed by the High Court of the Canton of Zurich.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
8C_392/2025: Inadmissibility of the complaint regarding supplementary benefits to AHV/IV
Summary of the facts
The complainant applied for supplementary benefits to AHV/IV, which were denied by the compensation office of the Canton of Bern due to an interruption of the uninterrupted ten-year residence in Switzerland according to Art. 5 ELG. This denial was confirmed by the Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern. The main point of contention was an abroad stay of the complainant from September 2020 to January 2021, which interrupted the statutory waiting period.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
7B_462/2025: Decision on the standing of the complainant in connection with the non-admittance of a criminal procedure
Summary of the facts
The public prosecutor's office Zurich-Limmat decided on November 27, 2024, not to initiate a criminal procedure for abuse of office and other offenses. The complaint filed by A.________ against this non-admittance was dismissed by the High Court of the Canton of Zurich on May 7, 2025. A.________ subsequently approached the Federal Court with a complaint in criminal matters to achieve the annulment of the cantonal decisions and instruction to initiate criminal proceedings, as well as further requests.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
9C_262/2025: Ruling regarding party compensation in connection with mineral oil tax proceedings
Summary of the facts
The managing director and the importer, represented by lawyers, were partially successful parties in proceedings regarding mineral oil taxes, mineral oil tax surcharges, and import taxes at the Federal Administrative Court. Consequently, the Federal Administrative Court awarded them a party compensation of CHF 62,343.-, based on an hourly rate of CHF 400.-. The Federal Office for Customs and Border Security (BAZG) filed a complaint with the Federal Court to reduce the compensation to CHF 46,584.55.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
7B_197/2025: Ruling regarding the unsealing of mobile phones in the context of a criminal investigation
Summary of the facts
A.________ was accused in connection with a criminal investigation of fraud. The law enforcement agency seized several mobile phones and documents that were sealed at their request. The public prosecutor's office subsequently requested the unsealing. The coercive measures court largely granted the request, upon which A.________ filed a complaint and claimed that the unsealing affected data protected by attorney-client privilege.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
1C_361/2024: Ruling regarding building permit for a mobile phone antenna facility
Summary of the facts
The building permit for a mobile phone antenna facility in the core zone of the municipality of Stäfa is disputed. The municipal council refused the building permit based on design requirements and local image protection, which was overturned by the building appeal court. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich confirmed this decision. The complainants then filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
6B_1201/2023: Ruling regarding complaint about indictment in abbreviated procedure and compensation of official defense
Summary of the facts
A. The District Court of Uri convicted A.________ in an abbreviated procedure for various offenses to a prison sentence and deportation. It waived the listing of the deportation in the Schengen Information System (SIS) and set compensations for the official defense. B. The Public Prosecutor's Office of Uri appealed against the waiver of the SIS listing and against the awarded compensations. The High Court of the Canton of Uri partially adjusted the compensations but also waived the SIS listing. C. The Public Prosecutor's Office filed a complaint with the Federal Court, requesting the annulment of the ruling and the referral for a new assessment.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
4A_278/2025: Withdrawal of the complaint
Summary of the facts
The complainant (A.________) filed a complaint in civil matters against a decision of the lower court, which was issued on April 24, 2025. The lower court was the Cour des poursuites et faillites of the Cantonal Court of Vaud. According to the presidential order of June 10, 2025, the complainant was requested to pay a cost advance of 800 francs by June 25, 2025. On June 29, 2025, the complainant withdrew his complaint.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
4A_575/2024: Ruling of the Federal Court of July 10, 2025
Summary of the facts
The A.________ SA (complainant) and the B.________ company (respondent) concluded a contract for transport services on December 23, 2014, which was governed by Ukrainian law and provided for an arbitration court (ICAC) as a dispute resolution body. In 2018, the ICAC ordered the complainant to pay the respondent. After unsuccessful legal remedies in Ukraine, a payment order was issued on October 11, 2022. The complainant filed an objection; the respondent then requested the recognition of the arbitration award and definitive legal enforcement, which both the first-instance and the cantonal courts granted.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
7B_491/2025: Inadmissibility of the complaint against the non-admittance order
Summary of the facts
The complainant filed a complaint in criminal matters against a decision of the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft, which had dismissed the complaint against the non-admittance order of the public prosecutor's office Basel-Landschaft.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
7B_581/2025: Non-admittance of the complaint
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________ was placed in preventive custody by the coercive measures court of the District of Zurich. A submission by the complainant, originally drafted in English, was not classified as a complaint by the High Court of the Canton of Zurich, and the proceedings were discontinued. The High Court did not enter the complaint. A.________ then submitted several filings to the Federal Court, including a request for release from custody.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
7B_348/2025: Dismissal of the proceedings after withdrawal of the complaint and decision on free legal assistance
Summary of the facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office I of the Canton of Zurich is conducting a criminal investigation against A.________ for various offenses, including preparatory acts (Art. 260bis StGB) and support of a criminal or terrorist organization (Art. 260ter para. 1 lit. b StGB). In the course of the investigations, the Public Prosecutor's Office requested the unsealing of seized documents, against which A.________ requested sealing. The coercive measures court of the District Court of Dielsdorf granted the request for unsealing. A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court against this, but withdrew it on July 3, 2025.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.