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 present detailed summaries including facts, considerations, and dispositives. For the further 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_609/2025: Non-acceptance of an appeal in matters of free legal assistance
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ seeks, among other things, the dismissal of the child representative and the guardian. In the proceedings before the District Council of Zurich, his request for free legal assistance was denied. The Cantonal Court of Zurich did not consider the appeal filed against this decision. The appellant then approached the Federal Court with several submissions, requesting among other things the annulment of the cantonal decisions and the granting of free legal assistance.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The subject of the Federal Court proceedings is exclusively the non-acceptance decision of the Cantonal Court. However, there is a lack of substantive reasoning as to why this should be legally incorrect. Remarks on other topics such as the dismissal of the child representative and the guardian cannot be the subject of appeal. - **E.2:** The submissions of the appellant do not directly and substantially challenge the grounds for non-acceptance of the Cantonal Court. Consequently, there is no appeal that engages with the facts. - **E.3:** Due to insufficient reasoning, the appeal is deemed obviously inadmissible. The proceedings are therefore concluded in a simplified procedure according to Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b BGG. - **E.4:** The request for free legal assistance for the federal procedure is to be denied, as the appeal is hopeless from the outset. - **E.5:** The court costs are imposed on the appellant.
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Court did not consider the appeal and denied the request for free legal assistance, with costs imposed on the appellant.
6B_614/2025: Judgment regarding the appeal against a non-acceptance decision
Summary of the Facts
The District Attorney of Lausanne issued a penal order against the appellant on December 12, 2024, which was subject to a fine and a penalty. Following an objection to the penal order, the appellant failed to appear for the interrogation without excuse, after which the objection was declared withdrawn. The Cantonal Court of Vaud did not consider the appeal against this decision on June 2, 2025, due to a lack of legally compliant reasoning. The appellant then filed an appeal with the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
The procedural language before the Federal Court is determined according to Art. 54 para. 1 BGG by the language of the prior-instance decision, here French. Exceptionally, the procedure can be conducted in German. The appeal to the Federal Court does not meet the formal requirements according to Art. 42 para. 1 BGG (missing personal signature). A referral for improvement (Art. 42 para. 5 BGG) will not take place. According to Art. 42 para. 2 BGG, the appeal must have demonstrated a violation of applicable law. The appellant's submission does not contain sufficient reasoning regarding the legal violation of the non-acceptance decision by the prior instance. The object of the appeal is exclusively the prior-instance non-acceptance decision. However, the appellant is dealing with the substantive side of the penal order, which is not the subject of the proceedings. If a request for a restoration of deadlines is to be made with the submission, this would not be the matter of the Federal Court but rather a first-instance question (cf. Art. 94 StPO). Exceptionally, no costs are imposed on the appellant (Art. 66 para. 1 BGG).
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal was not upheld, and no costs were incurred.
5A_629/2025: Non-acceptance decision in an appeal against a seizure announcement
Summary of the Facts
The debt enforcement office of Hinwil issued a seizure announcement to the debtor (A.________), against which he filed an appeal. The lower cantonal supervisory authority (District Court of Hinwil) rejected this appeal, after which the debtor filed another appeal with the Cantonal Court of Zurich (II. Civil Chamber). However, the Cantonal Court did not consider the appeal as it was insufficiently reasoned. With another appeal, the debtor approached the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
- E.1: Decisions of cantonal supervisory authorities regarding appeals against enforcement orders are subject to appeal in civil matters, regardless of the amount in dispute. - E.2: The Federal Court only examines whether the Cantonal Court rightly made a non-acceptance decision. A justification of the appeal must demonstrate how the contested decision violates the law, which requires a specific engagement. - E.3: The Cantonal Court found that the appellant did not substantively engage with the first-instance reasoning and did not provide any indication of possible deficiencies in the first-instance judgment. - E.4: Instead, the appellant repeats irrelevant statements, such as that he could not open a mailbox at the new residence due to his financial situation, which is irrelevant to the specific case. The appeal is thus obviously insufficiently reasoned. - E.5: Federal court judgments are announced in writing according to Art. 58 BGG. - E.6: The court costs are to be imposed on the appellant.
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Court did not consider the appeal and imposed the court costs on the appellant.
6B_153/2025: Expulsion according to Art. 66a StGB
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, a Spanish citizen living in Switzerland, was convicted of multiple sexual acts with children according to Art. 187 para. 1 StGB and sexual acts with a person incapable of judgment or resisting according to Art. 191 StGB to a total prison sentence of 36 months. 12 months of the sentence must be served, while the remaining 24 months were suspended with a probation period of five years. Additionally, probation assistance was ordered. The District Court also decided on the expulsion of the appellant for a duration of five years. The Cantonal Court confirmed this ruling, after which the appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Court to prevent the expulsion.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
6B_608/2024: Judgment of the Federal Court 6B_608/2024
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted by the courts of the Canton of Valais for theft, attempted theft, property damage, breaking and entering, and attempted breaking and entering. Among other things, the appellant was imposed a prison sentence and a five-year expulsion from Switzerland. A.________ appealed the Cantonal Court's ruling to the Federal Court and cited numerous violations of the law, particularly concerning the assessment of his criminal responsibility (Art. 19 and Art. 20 StGB), his right to be heard, the principle of evidence, the maxim of instruction, and the prohibition of arbitrariness.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_526/2025: Inadmissibility of a late appeal against the lifting of a measure
Summary of the Facts
The appellants A.________ and B.________ are contesting the maintenance of a guardianship with income and asset management, which was established by the Family Court of Zurzach. The Family Court of Zurzach rejected their request for the lifting of the measure and subsequently rendered this decision final. The Cantonal Court of Aargau confirmed this. The appeal to the Federal Court was filed late.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2C_141/2024: Judgment regarding the non-renewal of a residence permit and expulsion
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, a citizen of Colombia, entered Switzerland in 2017 and married a Swiss citizen. After the dissolution of the joint household and later divorce, the Office of Population Services of the Canton of Bern refused to extend his residence permit and expelled him from Switzerland. The appellant was economically and socially integrated during his time in Switzerland but could not claim particularly pronounced integration.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
6B_592/2025: Judgment on the reasoning requirements of an appeal
Summary of the Facts
The appellant received a penal order for violation of registration or de-registration obligations, against which he filed an objection. As he did not appear for the main hearing before the District Court of Küssnacht, the single judge declared his objection withdrawn and the penal order as final. An appeal filed with the Cantonal Court of Schwyz was declared inadmissible due to insufficient reasoning. The appellant then turned to the Federal Court.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_132/2025: Judgment regarding withholding tax for the years 2012 to 2016
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ GmbH (formerly B.________ GmbH) was ordered by the Federal Tax Administration (ESTV) to pay withholding taxes for the years 2012 to 2016 in the amount of CHF 176,472.-. The company had previously submitted a self-disclosure for undeclared income and a VAT audit in several tax proceedings. The Federal Administrative Court reduced the tax claim to CHF 167,848.-. The appellant requested a refund of the already paid withholding tax or alternatively its reduction, as well as the application of the reporting procedure and the waiver of default interest before the Federal Court.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_363/2025: Decision on the admissibility of an appeal in connection with invalidity insurance
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed an appeal against a decision of the Cantonal Court of Fribourg, II. Cour des assurances sociales, dated May 22, 2025. He objected to an expert opinion that deemed him fit for work, although he claimed to have a mental illness. He requested the conducting of a counter-expertise but did not provide sufficient reasoning according to Art. 42 para. 1 and 2 BGG.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_188/2025: Judgment on disability assessment and entitlement to disability pension
Summary of the Facts
The appellant applied for disability insurance benefits in 2019. After investigations, the IV Office of Solothurn denied entitlement to a pension and entitlement to vocational integration measures with a decision dated March 4, 2024. The Insurance Court of the Canton of Solothurn dismissed her appeal on February 21, 2025, to the extent it was admitted.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_465/2024: Decision regarding party status in a criminal appeal procedure
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, claims that the respondent B.B.________ removed inventory items from a property that was initially purchased by C.________ deceased and later transferred to the appellant by donation. The Public Prosecutor's Office discontinued a criminal investigation concerning fraud, embezzlement, and theft, and the Cantonal Court of Bern did not consider the subsequent cantonal appeal due to the lack of party status of the appellant.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_345/2025: Decision regarding the withdrawal of the appeal in the area of cantonal social insurance
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed an appeal on June 6, 2025, against a decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Vaud dated June 2, 2025. In a letter dated July 17, 2025, he declared the withdrawal of his appeal.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_652/2024: Decision regarding entitlement to a disability pension
Summary of the Facts
A.________, born in 1978, applied for benefits from the disability insurance due to medically certified incapacity to work (including agoraphobia with panic attacks). The responsible cantonal office granted him a quarter pension for the period from July 1, 2018, to February 28, 2021, but subsequently denied a pension entitlement. A.________ filed an appeal against this. The cantonal court recognized an entitlement to a half pension for the specified period while confirming other points of the cantonal office's decision. The cantonal office for disability insurance then filed an appeal with the Federal Court, aiming for no pension to be recognized.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_182/2024: Decision regarding the granting of short-time work compensation for a transport company
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ SA, a company in public passenger transport, applied for short-time work compensation for 405 employees during the pandemic in 2020 due to an estimated work shortfall of 21.10%. The responsible cantonal authority (SDE) rejected the application and the subsequent opposition. The cantonal court partially confirmed the obligation of the SDE to provide benefits for the regional transport sector but not for the urban transport sector. The company requested before the Federal Court the recognition of this compensation for all areas of its operations.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_389/2025: Judgment on the admissibility of an appeal in the area of unemployment insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________ registered with unemployment insurance on May 31, 2024, at which point a framework period for compensation was opened. After he submitted his evidence of job-seeking efforts for June 2024 late, the Directorate for Employment and Labor Market of the Canton of Vaud imposed a sanction of five days but reduced it in the objection decision to two days. The appeal filed by A.________ with the cantonal court was not upheld. A.________ then filed an appeal with the Federal Court, requesting the annulment of the cantonal decision and the sanction.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.