Latest Rulings of the Federal Court
Here you will find the latest rulings of the Federal Court (BGer) from bger.ch. For the first three rulings, we present detailed summaries including facts, considerations, and dispositions. 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.
8C_381/2025: Inadmissibility of a complaint regarding supplementary benefits for AHV/IV
Summary of the Facts
A policyholder filed a complaint against the decision of the insurance court of the canton of Ticino regarding the rejection of supplementary benefits for AHV/IV. The complainant had previously made real estate sales, part of whose proceeds were made as gifts to family members. The cantonal court recognized this as a waiver of assets, which affects the entitlement to supplementary benefits.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The Federal Court explains the requirements for a complaint according to Art. 42 and 95-97 BGG. Critiques of the factual findings and a nonspecific repetition of one's own position are insufficient to assert a violation of the law.
- **E.2:** The insurance court of the canton of Ticino found that the complainant had waived substantial assets, among other things, through gifts and uncollected claims. These actions were assessed as improper handling of assets, which excludes the entitlement to supplementary benefits.
- **E.3:** The complainant did not present any substantial arguments that could prove an arbitrary determination by the cantonal court or demonstrate a violation of the law.
- **E.4:** The complaint does not meet the formal requirements and is considered obviously unfounded according to Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b BGG. The requests made by the complainant during the proceedings (e.g., for suspensive effect and advances) are therefore moot.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint is declared inadmissible, and no court costs are incurred.
9F_10/2025: Ruling regarding the revision of a ruling in the area of disability insurance
Summary of the Facts
The complainant requests the revision of a ruling of the Federal Court dated April 25, 2025, which declared his complaint against a ruling of the Chamber of Social Insurances of the Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva inadmissible. He claims that the Federal Court did not correctly consider his requests and violated Art. 121 lit. c and d BGG.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The ruling of the Federal Court becomes legally binding upon its announcement and can only be challenged through extraordinary revision according to Art. 121 et seq. BGG.
- **E.3:** The complainant relies on Art. 121 lit. c and d BGG without adequately explaining how the criteria of these provisions are to be fulfilled.
- **E.6.1:** There is no violation of Art. 121 lit. c BGG, as the Federal Court addressed the relevant requests of the complainant. The objection raised is based on a sentence taken out of context.
- **E.6.2:** Art. 121 lit. d BGG is also not applicable, as no factual or interpretative oversights of the Federal Court are recognizable.
- **E.7:** The requirements for the justification of the complaint according to Art. 42 para. 2 BGG were not met by the complainant.
Summary of the Disposition
The request for revision is rejected, and the court costs are imposed on the complainant.
5G_5/2025: Rejection of a Rectificatio request in the context of a precautionary measure
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ requested the amendment of the wording of a precautionary measure order of the Federal Court dated July 25, 2025 (5A_493/2025). It prescribes that the company J.________ SA must deposit rental income from properties in a specific bank account for a specific period. The complainant demands a clarification of the period. The opposing parties, communities of heirs, were not invited to comment.
Summary of the Considerations
- **(E.1)** According to Art. 129 para. 1 BGG, the Federal Court can, upon request or ex officio, interpret or correct an unclear, incomplete, or contradictory order. This is also possible for suspensive or precautionary measures. A distinction between "interpretation" and "correction" is not necessary here, as the request is unfounded. - **(E.2)** The contested order clearly and unequivocally indicates that J.________ SA must deposit the rental income of the relevant period in a bank account and may not dispose of it until the decision on the main case. This fact is specified in several places in the order, making the request for rewording unnecessary. - **(E.3)** Consequently, the complainant's request is unfounded, and the rejection of the request also follows the regulation of costs, which according to Art. 66 para. 1 BGG are to be borne by him.
Summary of the Disposition
The request is denied, and costs are imposed on the applicant.
1C_143/2025: Decision on a planning change in Cureglia
Summary of the Facts
A. and B. are the owners of a residential property in Cureglia and an adjacent undeveloped plot, which A. owns together with C. The disputed planning change concerns the allocation of both properties partially to the construction zone ZE1. The focus is on the necessity to meet the new requirements for construction zones due to the 2014 revised spatial planning legislation. All lower courts rejected this change, particularly due to lack of compensation and an existing prohibition on the expansion of construction zones.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
6B_1347/2023: Inadmissibility of a complaint regarding confiscation
Summary of the Facts
The confiscation concerned assets of the complainant A.________, including shares of a property, rental income, and bank assets. The confiscation order was issued by the Federal Criminal Court and later confirmed by the Criminal Appeals Chamber. The complainant requested the Federal Court to lift the confiscation as well as for free legal aid and cost coverage.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
1C_334/2025: Inadmissibility of the complaint regarding the annulment of the replacement election for the Enforcement and City Clerk's Office Zurich 9
Summary of the Facts
A.________ requested on December 24, 2024, the annulment of the replacement election of September 25, 2022, for the enforcement officer of the city district of Zurich 9. The District Court of Zurich did not consider his appeal, as it was deemed to be submitted late. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed the complaint insofar as it could be considered. A.________ then filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
2C_153/2024: Complaint against the second revocation of LAFE permits
Summary of the Facts
A.________, an Italian citizen, was granted LAFE permits to use property as a holiday apartment in 1999, along with his mother, subject to various conditions. After years of unclear and interrupted construction work and disregard for the conditions, these permits were ultimately revoked in 2017. The complainant filed a lawsuit against this decision up to the Federal Court, where he again contested the revocation.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
4F_20/2025: Inadmissibility of the revision request in tenancy law
Summary of the Facts
The applicant rented two rooms under a sublease in a 3-room apartment from the social services of the municipality of B.________. Due to an eviction request from the landlord, she was subsequently ordered by the single judge of the District Court of Meilen to vacate and hand over the apartment by October 15, 2023. Her subsequent complaint before the Cantonal Court of Zurich and later the complaint in civil matters before the Federal Court were dismissed. A revision request regarding the corresponding order of the Federal Court dated March 25, 2024, was already denied by the Federal Court on May 24, 2025. A renewed revision request was submitted on June 28, 2025, which is the subject of the present decision.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
5A_360/2025: Decision on compliance with deadlines in a bankruptcy challenge procedure
Summary of the Facts
The B.________ Sàrl filed for bankruptcy against A.________ SA in liquidation due to an unanswered payment request, which was opened by the Civil Court on January 13, 2025. A.________ SA filed a complaint against this on January 30, 2025, which was declared inadmissible by the cantonal instance due to missed deadlines in a decision dated April 4, 2025. The point of contention was the timing of the valid service of the bankruptcy ruling.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
8C_548/2024: Review of employability after receiving FSE daily allowances
Summary of the Facts
A.________ registered with the RAV after the end of his employment with B.________ AG and applied for FSE daily allowances to set up a start-up in Bitcoin Merchant Payment Services. After granting 90 daily allowances for the planning phase, the Office for Economy and Labor (AWA) determined in a ruling that A.________ was not employable from the end of the planning phase because he had not abandoned the project. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zug overturned this ruling. The AWA then filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
9C_357/2025: Inadmissibility of the complaint in the area of occupational pension
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ GmbH filed a complaint against a ruling of the Insurance Court of the Canton of Aargau dated April 29, 2025, regarding occupational pension. The point of contention was, among other things, the inclusion under the operational scope of a collective labor agreement as well as the qualification of the operation as a pseudo mixed operation without independent operating parts.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
7B_1033/2024: Proceedings regarding the withdrawal of a complaint against a criminal decision of the Zurich Court
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ had filed a complaint in criminal matters against a decision of the Zurich Court, III. Criminal Chamber. After a settlement agreement was reached between the parties, the complainant unconditionally withdrew the complaint. The settlement stipulated that the court costs would be shared equally and no party compensation would be granted.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
4F_22/2025: Decision on the revision request of the applicant against a previous ruling
Summary of the Facts
The applicant requested the revision of a Federal Court ruling dated July 1, 2024, which had not considered a complaint from the applicant. The revision request was based on Art. 121 lit. a and c as well as Art. 123 para. 1 BGG. In addition, a request for granting free legal aid was made.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
6B_546/2025: Inadmissibility of a complaint regarding the rejection of a criminal report for child abduction
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and B.________, parents of the child C.________, had agreed after their separation that C.________ primarily lives with the father (A.________) and the mother (B.________) has visitation rights. In April 2015, B.________ took the child to Belgium without the father's consent and lived there permanently with him. The Federal Court examined the complaint from A.________, who claimed that the mother's action constituted child abduction according to Art. 220 StGB.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
6F_16/2025: Ruling on a revision request in criminal matters
Summary of the Facts
The applicant requested the revision of a ruling of the Federal Court dated March 27, 2025 (Ruling 6B_14/2025), which had been issued in a criminal matter. The starting point was a conviction by the District Court of March and its confirmation by the Cantonal Court of Schwyz for a serious traffic rule violation. The applicant justified the revision request with the alleged incorrectness of the original ruling and demanded a re-evaluation.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
1C_471/2024: Building permit for the repurposing of commercial premises into apartments
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ AG applied for a subsequent building permit for the repurposing of two commercial premises into apartments on its plot No. 2107 in Ennetbaden (Bathing Zone B). The municipal council of Ennetbaden rejected the application. After a request for reconsideration and complaints to the Department of Construction, Transport, and Environment of the Canton of Aargau and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Aargau, the use of the premises as residential spaces was not approved. The A.________ AG then appealed to the Federal Court in public law matters.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
5A_511/2025: Inadmissibility of a complaint regarding the execution of a seizure and access to files
Summary of the Facts
The complainant was the subject of numerous enforcement actions and seizures by the Sarine enforcement office. Due to her systematic resistance and frequent non-appearance at hearings, measures were taken, including seizures of salary and bank assets, while she contested various procedural rules and measures, such as the failure to transmit her complete dossier. Her complaints included a lawsuit for alleged serious procedural errors and the rejection of a repayment plan of CHF 300 monthly.
The cantonal court, the Chamber of Enforcement and Bankruptcy of the Cantonal Court of Fribourg, dismissed her complaints as far as it considered them.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
5A_598/2025: Decision regarding the relocation of children abroad and suspensive effect
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and B.________ are the parents of three children and have lived separately since their divorce in 2021. The children are under joint parental custody, but primarily in the sole custody of the mother (B.________). In the context of a modification procedure, the father (A.________) applied for custody of the children, while the mother counterclaimed for permission to emigrate with the children to Greece. The first-instance court approved the relocation and regulated the father's visitation rights. The Cantonal Court of Zurich granted the mother the preliminary enforcement of the relocation decision in the appeal proceedings. The father then filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
6B_1013/2024: Complaint against a conviction for various offenses (including theft and drug use)
Summary of the Facts
The complainant was convicted by the Geneva Police Court for theft, petty theft, trespassing, assault, illegal residence, and drug use, receiving a total prison sentence of five months and a fine of 500 francs. The Geneva Court of Appeals confirmed the ruling from the Police Court. The complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Court, requesting among other things a psychiatric evaluation, a partial or complete revision ruling, and an increase in the threshold for petty theft.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
7B_463/2025: Non-acceptance and non-admission of a complaint
Summary of the Facts
The complainant opposed the non-acceptance order of the public prosecutor's office of Frauenfeld dated March 25, 2025. The lower court, the Cantonal Court of Thurgau, did not admit the complaint on April 28, 2025. The complainant then filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Court on May 19, 2025.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
6B_598/2025: Order regarding the withdrawal of a complaint against an order of the Zurich Court
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a complaint against the order of the Cantonal Court of Zurich, III. Criminal Chamber, dated May 22, 2025. The complaint concerned an objection to a penal order due to a minor traffic rule violation. On July 31, 2025, the complainant withdrew the complaint.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
2C_273/2024: Ruling on the complaint of denial of justice regarding the amendment of the hunting ordinance
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ objected to the partial revision of the hunting ordinance dated November 1, 2023, which occurred without conducting a hearing process, seeing this as a violation of her democratic rights. She requested a declaratory ruling from the Federal Department of Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (UVEK), which was denied. The Federal Administrative Court partially upheld the complaint of denial of justice and ruled that UVEK should have issued a formal decision; however, it rejected the complaint in substance. The complainant then appealed the judgment to the Federal Court.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
9C_496/2024: Dispute over tax domicile and inter-cantonal double taxation
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ AG moved its statutory seat several times between the cantons of Zug and Zurich, leading to a dispute between the tax offices of the two cantons over jurisdiction for tax assessment for the tax years 2017 and 2018. The cantonal tax office of Zurich claimed tax authority based on actual management, which was disputed by A.________ AG.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
2C_227/2025: Withdrawal of the suspensive effect in an expulsion case
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a French citizen born in Switzerland with a residence permit, was ordered by the Federal Office of Police (Fedpol) to leave Switzerland immediately and was given a 15-year entry ban for Switzerland and Liechtenstein due to a threat to the internal and external security of Switzerland. The suspensive effect for a possible complaint was removed. The Federal Administrative Court rejected A.________'s request for restoration of the suspensive effect. The complainant then filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
9C_232/2025: Ruling on disability insurance (residual work capacity and employability)
Summary of the Facts
The insured A.________ initially registered with disability insurance in May 2018, and a subsequent application followed in January 2020 due to a hand injury. The IV office of the Canton of Zurich ultimately determined a degree of disability of 21% and denied any entitlement to benefits. The cantonal social insurance court considered the residual work capacity to be unexploitable and granted the insured a full disability pension.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
7B_1007/2024: Ruling on the revision of a criminal conviction for qualified robbery
Summary of the Facts
The complainant was found guilty of qualified robbery by the Cantonal Court of Zurich in the second instance and sentenced to a conditional prison sentence of 22 months and an expulsion from the country for eight years. A subsequent request for revision by the complainant was rejected by the lower court. In the complaint to the Federal Court, he requested the approval of the revision request and attempted to achieve a change in the final ruling, citing a new notarized statement from a witness who revised her previous statements.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
7B_1400/2024: Decision on inadmissible complaint in a criminal matter
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted by the District Police Court of Lausanne for various incidents in which he insulted, threatened, and restricted B.________ and her partner C.________ in their freedom of action. In particular, he sent insulting messages, acted aggressively physically, and restricted their freedom of action. A.________ filed an appeal against the first-instance decision, making various objections against the composition of the court. The appellate instance of the Cantonal Court of Vaud dismissed these objections and confirmed the first-instance ruling as well as the distribution of costs.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
1C_678/2024: Decision regarding the issuance of a building and special permit outside the construction zone
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court decided on the application of the complainants (A.A. and B.A.) to legalize the construction work on their plot located outside the construction zone in the municipality of Sorens. The points of contention concerned the approval of a special permit according to Art. 24 and 24c of the Spatial Planning Act (LAT), after it was established that the original building plans were not complied with and the new building exceeded the original building height significantly.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.
7B_1236/2024: Non-acceptance of an investigation due to defamation
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a lawyer and complainant, felt his honor was violated by a comment related to a publicly known criminal case. He filed a criminal complaint for defamation against several individuals, including E.________, the author of the comment. After reviewing the residence data, the public prosecutor's office of Winterthur/Unterland took over the case but decided not to initiate the investigation. The complaint against the non-acceptance order was dismissed by the Zurich Court.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the portal.