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 present detailed summaries including facts, considerations, and dispositives. For the subsequent judgments, you will find a summary of the facts. The complete summaries of all judgments are available on the Lexplorer portal. There, you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest judgments tailored to your legal areas.
6B_321/2025: Decision on the criminal judgment of a professional driver for negligence
Summary of the Facts
A professional driver (A.________) caused an accident on a highway on October 14, 2021, resulting in three fatalities and one serious injury. The accident occurred due to inattention while the driver was using a mobile phone and a failure to secure the vehicle with a seatbelt. The convicted person appealed against the judgment of the Cantonal Court of the State of Fribourg dated February 19, 2025, requesting a suspension of the sentence (Sursis).
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Court confirms the limitations of its review competence and emphasizes that it is bound by the findings of the cantonal court unless they are unlawful or obviously erroneous. Criticisms of the factual findings are considered appellate and therefore inadmissible. The court outlines the legal criteria for granting a suspension of the sentence according to Art. 42 and Art. 43 of the Penal Code (StGB). It confirms that the granting of a suspension is generally the rule for a sentence of one to two years; however, an unfavorable prognosis decision excludes the granting of a Sursis. The appeal was rejected because the lower court had correctly made a poor prognosis decision. Key factors were the lack of insight of the appellant into the seriousness of his actions, a risk of recidivism considering prior convictions, and the behavior of the professional driver after the act, which involved shifting responsibility to other parties. The Federal Court also rejects the granting of a partial suspension since this would also require a favorable prognosis, which is not present in this case.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal was dismissed and the court costs were imposed on the appellant.
1C_658/2024: Judgment regarding building permit and interpretation of municipal building regulations
Summary of the Facts
B.________ SA intends to expand an existing villa on its plot in the municipality of Épalinges through an extension and an increase in height, including a new living area, an underground garage, and an outdoor swimming facility. A.________, the owner of the neighboring plot, filed an objection against the building permit of the municipality and an additional permit, both based on modified project plans. The cantonal court essentially confirmed the permit but emphasized that the modified plans were the basis for the permit. A.________ then appealed to the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
The appeal is admissible under Art. 82 et seq. BGG, as it concerns the last cantonal instance in a public law matter related to building regulations. The appellant is affected as a direct neighboring party and thus has standing to appeal. The appellant criticizes the application of the municipal building plan and alleges arbitrary legal application, particularly regarding the regulation of obligatory construction in the "non-contiguous" mode and the distance between buildings on the same plot. The Federal Court reviews the application of cantonal law only from the perspective of arbitrariness and concludes that the interpretation of the relevant regulations by the cantonal authorities was defensible. The appellant could not prove that the decision of the cantonal authority arbitrarily disregarded the provisions of the municipal building regulations. It was criticized that the construction would create a second villa, which would violate zoning regulations. However, according to Art. 24 RPGA, architectural unity and functional connection were argued, fulfilling the conditions for an extension. The cantonal authorities correctly respected municipal autonomy. The appellant further criticizes compliance with regulations concerning terrain and floor heights, particularly regarding the definition of "steep slope." The Federal Court confirms the finding of the cantonal courts that the slope qualifies as "steep" and that the height rules are complied with. Finally, the appellant criticizes the calculation of the building length considering a locally technical building part. The Federal Court deems the calculation according to municipal regulations correct and the criteria of "underground character" fulfilled.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal was dismissed, and A.________ was ordered to pay court costs and party compensation.
5F_35/2025: Judgment on a request for revision regarding visitation rights
Summary of the Facts
A.________ (applicant) married B.________ (respondent) in 2016. They have a daughter born in 2023. In a marriage protection proceeding at the Regional Court of Landquart, the applicant was deprived of custody and granted supervised contact with his daughter, which was gradually expanded. The Cantonal Court of Graubünden changed the visitation arrangement in favor of the applicant. With an appeal to the Federal Court, A.________ attempted to obtain further changes, particularly a stepwise visitation right up to alternating custody, which the Federal Court rejected with judgment 5A_404/2025. With the current request, he sought the revision of this judgment.
Summary of the Considerations
**E.1:** Federal Court judgments are final but may be revised in exceptional cases according to Art. 121 et seq. BGG. Revisions are not meant to re-discuss the legal situation but require specifically articulated grounds for revision.
**E.2:** The claim regarding allegedly fraudulent invoices and alternating custody are not grounds for revision. These points were either not addressed in the original judgment or exceeded the permissible subject of dispute.
**E.3:** The applicant did not present any concrete grounds for revision. Instead, he seeks a reconsideration of the entire case, which is not the subject of a revision procedure. The Federal Court cannot entertain such requests.
**E.4:** Due to a lack of prospects of success, the request for free legal assistance is rejected.
**E.5:** The court costs of CHF 1,500.-- are imposed on the applicant.
Summary of the Dispositive
The request is deemed inadmissible, and the court costs are imposed on the applicant.
2C_407/2024: Judgment on emission rights and monitoring obligations for CO2 emissions from the decomposition of carbonates
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, a paper production company, operates a residual waste incineration plant (RüVA) where mixed sludge is burned. According to a decision by the Federal Office for the Environment (BAFU), emission rights for the year 2022 were allocated to it free of charge; however, the CO2 emissions resulting from the decomposition of carbonates in the RüVA were not considered, and it was required to record these emissions in the annual monitoring and to surrender emission rights for them. The Federal Administrative Court confirmed the decision of BAFU.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_517/2024: Decision regarding contract for daily sickness benefit insurance and allegation of deception
Summary of the Facts
B.________, former board member and employee of C.________ SA, took out a daily sickness benefit insurance policy through F.________ SA with A.________ SA. After the insolvency of C.________ SA and the continued incapacity for work of B.________ since September 2019, the insurance company stopped payments, made claims for reimbursement, and annulled the contract due to alleged fraudulent behavior. B.________ sued the insurance company before the Cantonal Court, which partially upheld his claim. The insurance company then appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_1001/2024: Inadmissibility of the appeal regarding bodily injury and threats
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was found guilty by the Tribunal de police of the Canton of Geneva on March 5, 2024, for bodily injury under Art. 123 aCP, threats under Art. 180 CP, outrageous behavior under Art. 286 CP, and violation of the legislation on foreigners and integration (LEI). He was sentenced to 150 days of imprisonment, a fine of 15 daily rates with conditional execution, and a penalty. The court of first instance, the chamber for criminal appeals and revisions of the Cour de justice of the Canton of Geneva, confirmed this judgment on October 28, 2024. A.________ then appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_159/2025: Decision on the dispute over standing to appeal in connection with a tenure-track professorship at EPFL
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, an assistant professor "tenure track" at EPFL, was excluded from the evaluation process for promotion to professor due to not submitting application documents. Her contract ends on January 14, 2025. A subsequent internal objection was deemed inadmissible (lack of standing to appeal) as there was no challenge to the actual decision. The TAF confirmed the inadmissibility.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_512/2025: Decision regarding construction craftsman's lien
Summary of the Facts
A.________ AG filed a lawsuit regarding a construction craftsman's lien with the District Court of Bülach. The District Court demanded a current and case-specific power of attorney with a deadline. Due to the failure to submit this power of attorney, the District Court declared the lawsuit as not having been filed and closed the proceedings. The appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Cantonal Court of Zurich, after which A.________ AG appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_618/2023: Representation by architect and payment obligations from works contracts
Summary of the Facts
A.________ SA, active in real estate trading, planned the construction of buildings on several plots in a municipality in the Canton of Valais. For this purpose, it signed a general architect contract with C.________ (architect) on October 21, 2014. The contract regulated, among other things, the representative powers of the architect. In connection with the preparation of earthquake-resistant reports and structural analyses, B.________ (engineer) was involved by the architect. Disputes arose over the payment of fees (totaling CHF 65,360) that the engineer claimed based on two contracts, the conclusion of which A.________ disputed.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_438/2024: Non-renewal of a residence permit from a family and private law perspective
Summary of the Facts
The Kosovar citizen A.________ applied for the extension of his residence permit in Switzerland. Despite a ten-year presence and a connection to his children living in Switzerland, the migration office refused the extension due to repeated criminal offenses and lack of integration. Lower courts, including the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich, dismissed the legal remedies filed by A.________.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_405/2025: Inadmissibility of the appeal against a cost order
Summary of the Facts
- The appellant, a Cameroonian citizen, was denied refugee status, and his asylum application was rejected. He was ordered to leave Switzerland.
- The appellant submitted a request to the Federal Administrative Court for exemption from the advance payment of procedural costs, which was denied due to lack of prospects of success.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_90/2025: Decision regarding the appeal procedure concerning rent determination after renovation work
Summary of the Facts
The owner of a multi-family house in Chêne-Bourg (Geneva) carried out renovation work in one of her rental properties without obtaining the necessary building permit. Subsequently, she applied for a building and rent approval, which was granted by the competent cantonal authorities. The rent for the renovated apartment was retroactively set, and the owner was ordered to refund overcharged rents to the former tenants and to pay a fine. Ultimately, the owner contested these decisions and appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_248/2025: Judgment regarding expulsion and arbitrariness
Summary of the Facts
A.________, an Angolan citizen, has been residing in Switzerland since childhood. He has committed numerous offenses, including fraud, insults, and sexual violence. Due to these offenses, he was sentenced by the Lausanne Criminal Court to imprisonment, a fine, and a seven-year expulsion from Switzerland. The cantonal appeals instance overturned the expulsion, as A.________ has no ties to his home country of Angola, health issues burden him, and his private situation in Switzerland was deemed serious. The prosecutor of the Canton of Vaud appealed against this decision to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_409/2025: Judgment on non-prosecution and security deposit in a criminal procedure
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed a complaint in criminal matters against a decision of the Cantonal Court of Zurich, III. Criminal Chamber, dated May 14, 2025. The Cantonal Court had instructed him to provide a security deposit related to his appeal against a non-prosecution decision of the Zurich-Limmat Public Prosecutor's Office.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_646/2025: Judgment on the question of standing to appeal in connection with the closure of a criminal case
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed an appeal with the Federal Court against a decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Fribourg dated June 2, 2025, in which the chamber had dismissed the appeal against a closure decision of the cantonal public prosecutor's office dated January 23, 2025. A.________ accused a cantonal judge of various offenses related to the rejection of his candidacy for a position on the juvenile criminal court, claimed a violation of his personality rights, and requested compensation for damages and satisfaction.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_588/2025: Decision on the revision of a general guardianship
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, born in 1958, is subject to a formerly provisional general guardianship, which was definitively confirmed by corresponding decisions of the Geneva Tribunal for the Protection of Adults and Children in 2014 and 2015. Due to a change of residence, the jurisdiction for the guardianship was transferred to the APEA in Zurich. By submission on February 23, 2025, the appellant requested the annulment of the 2014 decision. The Geneva Tribunal declared her request for revision inadmissible on April 1, 2025. The cantonal supervisory authority dismissed her appeal against this decision on June 17, 2025, to the extent that it was entertained.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_527/2024: Decision on an appeal regarding a non-prosecution decision in connection with a traffic accident
Summary of the Facts
The minor A.A. was involved in a traffic accident with a school bus on August 29, 2023. She was riding her moped on the way to U.________ and collided with an oncoming school bus. She suffered serious injuries. The president of the youth court of the Canton of Vaud decided not to prosecute A.A. on December 12, 2023, citing Art. 21 lit. d DPMin and Art. 5 Para. 1 lit. a PPMin. The appeal against this decision was dismissed on March 7, 2024, by the Criminal Appeal Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Vaud. A.A. filed an appeal with the Federal Court on May 6, 2024.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2D_13/2025: Inadmissibility of the appeal against the expulsion of a Turkish citizen
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a Turkish citizen, submitted an asylum application to the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) on October 14, 2023, which was rejected on January 11, 2024. At the same time, his expulsion from Switzerland was ordered. His subsequent appeal against this decision was rejected by the Federal Administrative Court on January 30, 2024. On June 10, 2025, A.________ submitted a request for the revision of this judgment. On June 24, 2025, the enforcement of the expulsion was provisionally suspended, but this was later revoked by an interim decision of the Federal Administrative Court on July 15, 2025. A.________ then addressed the Federal Court on July 22, 2025, with a letter written in Turkish and partially in French, seeking to halt the expulsion again.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_616/2023: Decision on representation in a real estate project
Summary of the Facts
A.________ SA, a company involved in the purchase and sale of real estate, planned a construction project in the Canton of Valais. For this purpose, it signed a general architect contract with C.________ on October 21, 2014. The contract regulated, among other things, the financial representation of the client by the architect. Between 2014 and 2016, B.________ SA provided technical services on behalf of the architect, which were ultimately not paid by A.________. A.________ disputed the contractual obligation with B.________, did not carry out the project, and sold the affected parcels. B.________ sued for payment of outstanding amounts.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_198/2025: Non-admittance of a public law appeal
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a complaint with the president of the Cantonal Council of St. Gallen against the president of the indictment chamber of the Cantonal Court of St. Gallen, Urs Gmünder, for violation of procedural guarantees. The legal protection commission of the Canton of St. Gallen decided not to admit the complaint as it was not authorized to deal with such matters as a parliamentary supervisory commission. A.________ then appealed to the Federal Administrative Court, which forwarded the matter to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_12/2025: Appeal concerning authorization for prosecution against guardians and employees of the KESB Toggenburg
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, filed a criminal complaint against his guardian B.________, against C.________, the guardian of his siblings, as well as against employees of the KESB Toggenburg for abuse of office in connection with his precautionary placement and the placement of his siblings. The indictment chamber of St. Gallen refused to grant authorization for prosecution. The appellant requests the Federal Court to grant the authorization and other requests, which, however, lie outside the subject matter of the dispute.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5D_34/2024: Decision regarding enforcement and administrative fine
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ opposed an administrative fine imposed by the peace judge of the district of Lausanne for non-compliance with a court order. The administrative fine amounted to a total of CHF 21,750 for the period from February 1 to 29, 2024, based on an earlier decision from December 28, 2022, which established a daily fine of CHF 750. The Cantonal Court of Vaud, Civil Chamber, dismissed her appeal against this cantonal decision on May 31, 2024.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_575/2024: Decision regarding the extension of a residence permit
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, a Georgian citizen, applied for the extension of his residence permit in Switzerland, claiming a family relationship with his son. The migration office of the Canton of Zurich, followed by the security directorate and finally the administrative court, rejected his application. The Federal Court had to decide whether the appellant could assert a right of residence based on the right to respect for family life (Art. 8 ECHR; Art. 13 BV).
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_677/2024: Judgment regarding building permit for residential development Endorfhohle in the municipality of Sigriswil
Summary of the Facts
The construction company D.________ applied for the new construction of four semi-detached houses, a three-family house, and additional facilities in the development plan "Endorfhohle" in Sigriswil. Objections were raised against the building application, which were successively dismissed by the district governor of Thun, the construction and transport directorate of the Canton of Bern, and the administrative court of the Canton of Bern. The appellants, directly affected landowners, appealed to the Federal Court, raising particular deficiencies in the development plan and the procedure.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_128/2025: Judgment regarding compensation and satisfaction claims under the Victims' Assistance Act
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and B.________ submitted a request for compensation and satisfaction under the Victims' Assistance Act to the Office for Social Contributions Basel-Stadt, which was rejected. They appealed against the decision to the Cantonal Court of Basel-Stadt, which did not admit it due to a missed deadline. Before the Federal Court, they claimed to have sent a request in time via the platform "PrivaSphere." The Federal Court found that the appeal did not meet the legal justification requirements and did not admit it.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_43/2025: Decision regarding authorization for vine planting
Summary of the Facts
A.________ SA submitted an application on June 7, 2022, for authorization to plant a new vine on a 21,875 m² area of its plot in the municipality of U.________ in the Canton of Geneva. The property is recorded in the vineyard register as "vineyard outside the wine-growing zone" and falls under the zones for fodder areas. Despite positive statements from the municipality of U.________ and other authorities, the Cantonal Office for Agriculture and Nature of Geneva rejected the authorization on the grounds that the property characteristics (northern orientation, slight slope, proximity to forest, and soil properties) were not conducive to viticulture. After rejection by two subsequent instances, the case reached the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_230/2025: Decision regarding denied residence permit and expulsion from Switzerland
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and B.________, Algerian citizens and daughters of C.________, applied in December 2022 for a family reunification permit to be allowed to stay in Switzerland with their mother, who is married to a Swiss citizen. The application was rejected as it was submitted late and no valid reason for the delayed family reunification was provided. After several instances, the decision was ultimately reviewed by the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.