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 with facts, considerations, and dispositive parts. For the other judgments, you will find a summary of the facts. The complete summaries of all judgments are available on the portal of Lexplorer. There, you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest judgments tailored to your areas of law.
2C_182/2025: Judgment on Disciplinary Measure Against a Lawyer
Summary of the Facts
Lawyer A.________ represented her mother, who was only partially capable of judgment, in a procedure for the cancellation of guardianship and other matters, even though the Cantonal Court of Aargau had already established a conflict of interest. The family court subsequently reported a breach of professional rules to the Bar Commission of the Canton of Aargau. The commission found a violation of Art. 12 lit. c BGFA (Professional Rules for Lawyers) by the lawyer and issued a reprimand. The Administrative Court confirmed the decision of the Bar Commission.
Summary of the Considerations
**E.1:** A cantonal final decision is present. The appeal in public law matters is permissible.
**E.2:** The binding nature of the factual findings by the lower courts is affirmed unless they are obviously incorrect or arbitrary.
**E.3:** The lower court rightly relied on the findings of the civil courts regarding the applicant's conflict of interest, as these have a binding effect for the procedure.
**E.4:** The subsumption under Art. 12 lit. c BGFA (Avoiding Conflicts of Interest) is correct. The conflict of interest between the personal interests of the applicant and those of her mother was clearly established by the lower courts.
**E.5:** The applicant was granted the right to be heard. She was able to express herself multiple times regarding the allegations in the procedure.
**E.6:** The applicant cannot invoke the presumption of innocence under Art. 6 Para. 2 ECHR, as the disciplinary reprimand does not constitute a punishment.
**E.7:** Criticism of the entire adult protection system in the Canton of Aargau is outside the subject of the dispute and could not be examined.
**E.8:** The reprimand issued is appropriate and proportionate.
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay court costs.
7B_563/2025: Inadmissibility of the Appeal in a Criminal Matter
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed an appeal against the decision of the Chambre des recours pénale of the Cantonal Tribunal of the Canton of Vaud dated April 11, 2025, which dismissed an appeal against the non-initiation order of the District Prosecutor of Ostvaud. The appeal concerned the rejection of a criminal investigation against two police officers who allegedly made false statements.
Summary of the Considerations
**E.1:** The subject of the proceedings is exclusively the contested decision of the last cantonal instance according to Art. 80 Para. 1 BGG. Other submissions are inadmissible.
**E.2:** An additional written submission by the appellant was submitted late and will not be considered.
**E.3:** The appeal was not sufficiently justified, as the appellant did not present any concrete civil law claims in the sense of Art. 81 Para. 1 lit. a and b No. 5 BGG. Furthermore, in the Canton of Vaud, according to cantonal law, only the state is liable, not its officials, so civil law claims cannot be asserted directly.
**E.4:** The rights to appeal mentioned in Art. 81 Para. 1 lit. b No. 6 BGG, such as the right to file a criminal complaint, are not relevant here.
**E.5:** The appellant does not assert a separate claim for violation of party rights, but raises complaints that are closely linked to the substantive assessment, which is inadmissible.
**E.6:** The inadmissibility of the appeal is established in the simplified procedure according to Art. 108 Para. 1 lit. a and b BGG. The procedural costs are imposed on the appellant.
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The appeal is declared inadmissible, and court costs are imposed on the appellant.
7B_515/2025: Decision Regarding Change of Official Defense
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, was convicted by the Criminal Court of the Canton of Lucerne for professional fraud, multiple forgery, and money laundering to a prison sentence of two years and ten months, as well as a banishment of seven years. In the appeal procedure, he requested a change of his official defense. The Cantonal Court of Lucerne rejected the request and confirmed the official defender, lawyer B.________, as his defense attorney. A.________ filed an appeal with the Federal Court, requesting the annulment of this decision and the approval of his request for a change of defense.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The Federal Court examines the requirements for the admissibility of the appeal, as an interim decision is being contested. It affirms the possibility of an irremediable disadvantage, as the appellant credibly demonstrated that the trust relationship with the official defense is significantly disturbed.
- **E.2:** There is no need to edit further documents, as the relevant facts emerge from the existing files.
- **E.3:** The lower court based its assessment on sparse information because the appellant did not sufficiently justify his request. The submitted documents and new submissions of the appellant before the Federal Court are inadmissible. The factual findings of the lower court are not considered arbitrary.
- **E.4:** The appellant could not provide any objective and substantiated evidence for a significant disturbance of the trust relationship with the official defense. The lower court does not violate applicable law by refusing the change of official defense. There is also no right to the requested change on a constitutional level.
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The appeal was dismissed, and the court costs were imposed on the appellant.
2C_61/2024: Decision on the Revocation of a Permit
Summary of the Facts
A.________, an Italian national, had been residing in Switzerland since 2004 and held a residence permit (Permit UE/AELS). This was revoked due to criminal convictions, including offenses such as money laundering and tax fraud, as well as substantial financial indebtedness and false statements to the authorities during the permit application process. The cantonal authorities and the lower court (Administrative Court of the Canton of Ticino) confirmed the revocation. A.________ contested both the legal basis and the proportionality of the decision before the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the Portal.
2C_383/2025: Inadmissibility of an Appeal Against a Letter from the SEM
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed an appeal with the Federal Court against his expulsion from Switzerland, which was ordered by the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) in a letter dated March 17, 2025, following a non-documented judgment of the Federal Administrative Court. The letter set a deadline for departure by April 14, 2025.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the Portal.
1C_393/2025: Inadmissibility of an Appeal in Matters of Diplomatic Protection
Summary of the Facts
The appellant requested the Federal Court to review a decision of the Swiss Federal Council dated June 13, 2025, as well as an interim order of the Federal Department of Justice and Police (EJPD) dated February 27, 2025. He requested the assurance of diplomatic protection in connection with incidents in Thailand and legal aid. The Federal Council did not consider the appeal of the appellant due to the lack of advance payment of costs.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the Portal.
5A_561/2025: Decision Regarding Inadmissibility of an Appeal in Bankruptcy Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The proceedings concern the challenge of a bankruptcy judgment by the company A.________ Sàrl. The first-instance court in Geneva issued the bankruptcy order on May 26, 2025. The appeal filed by the company with the cantonal civil chamber was declared inadmissible on June 13, 2025, due to late filing and lack of evidence for debt repayment or solvency. The company then appealed to the Federal Court, which treated the matter from a civil law perspective.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the Portal.
4F_25/2025: Judgment on the Revision of a Previous Judgment
Summary of the Facts
A.________ requested the revision of the Federal Court judgment dated December 15, 2021, in a civil matter against B.________. He cited a new piece of evidence dated June 27, 2025, and requested the annulment of the previous judgment and a reassessment of the matter. Additionally, he requested legal aid.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the Portal.
1C_721/2024: Judgment on the Revocation of a Foreign Driver's License
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a German citizen, drove a vehicle for a short distance on February 5, 2023, during an ongoing license revocation, which resulted in a conviction for driving without authorization. The Thurgau Road Traffic Office subsequently revoked his driver's license for all categories for six months. The appeal filed against the judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Thurgau was dismissed. A.________ then appealed to the Federal Court against the judgment of the Administrative Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the Portal.
1C_110/2025: Request for Recusal Against the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Oberhof in Connection with the Wind Farm Project Burg
Summary of the Facts
C.________ AG plans to establish a wind farm on the "Burg" ridge, partially on the territory of the municipality of Oberhof (Aargau). A.________ and B.________ raised objections against the necessary changes to the agricultural land use plan and the building and zoning regulations, as well as other project-related requests, and requested the recusal of Mayor Roger Fricker and Deputy Mayor Heinz Herzog. The recusal request was partially approved by the Department of Construction, Transport, and Environment of the Canton of Aargau. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Aargau overturned the decision of the Department. The complainants appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the Portal.
5A_668/2025: Inadmissibility of an Appeal Regarding Enforcement
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court deals with the appeal of A.________ against the decision of the Chambre des poursuites et faillites of the Cantonal Tribunal of the Canton of Fribourg dated August 19, 2025. The subject of the appeal is the rejection of a submission for the removal of the Sarine debt collection office in the context of an enforcement procedure.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the Portal.
2C_392/2023: Decision of the Federal Court on Proportionality in the Termination of Residence in Immigration Law
Summary of the Facts
A.A.________, an Afghan citizen, has been living in Switzerland with his family since 2007. After their asylum application was rejected, they were granted temporary admission and later received a hardship permit. Due to criminal convictions (including in Switzerland and Austria), the Office for Migration and Civil Law of Graubünden revoked his residence permit. The Administrative Court of Graubünden confirmed the termination of residence. A.A.________ then filed an appeal with the Federal Court, wherein the proportionality of the measure remained disputed.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the Portal.
4A_329/2025: Decision on Definitive Legal Opening
Summary of the Facts
A.________ refused to pay a claim from his health insurance, B.________ SA, and opposed the payment order. The Tribunal civil des Montagnes et du Val-de-Ruz granted the definitive legal opening for the amount of CHF 1,037.45 with interest from July 5, 2024. The subsequent appeal by the debtor to the Cour civile of the Cantonal Tribunal of the Canton of Neuchâtel was dismissed on May 23, 2025. A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court, particularly requesting the declaration of nullity of the cantonal decisions and the decision of the first instance.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the Portal.
4A_621/2024: Decision Regarding Medical Liability
Summary of the Facts
A former worker contested the medical treatment at HFR - Hôpital fribourgeois, particularly two operations in 2016 and 2017. It was found that incorrect diagnoses led to treatment errors. The patient suffered persistent complaints and has been completely disabled since 2017. Compensation based on the responsibility of the public hospital was rejected by the hospital, as well as by the cantonal lower court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the Portal.
4A_183/2025: Employment Contract Disputes and Claims Regarding Hours and Expenses
Summary of the Facts
An employee (A.________) approached the Tribunal de prud'hommes and later the cantonal appellate authority, and finally the Federal Court, to claim payments for allegedly rendered overtime between 2017 and 2019, as well as for professional expenses amounting to CHF 9,979.95. The former employer (B.________) disputed these claims, arguing that the expenses in question were private and that overtime was neither necessary nor known.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the Portal.
5A_666/2025: Inadmissibility of the Suspensive Effect and Measures in a Family Law Case
Summary of the Facts
The father (A.________) requests effective measures from the Federal Court (suspensive effect as well as superprovisional and provisional measures) to prevent the planned departure of his children from Switzerland and to review the court judgment of the lower court, which allows the mother (B.________) to determine the residence of the children C.________ and D.________.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the Portal.
7B_260/2024: Inadmissibility of the Appeal in the Death of a Patient
Summary of the Facts
C.A.________ passed away in 2022 in the hospital. The ministry subsequently opened an investigation into a suspicious death. A.A.________ (husband) and B.A.________ (son) requested further evidence collection, which the ministry rejected on September 7, 2023, and closed the investigation. The cantonal complaint chamber dismissed the appeal against this closure decision on January 31, 2024.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the Portal.
2C_315/2024: Disciplinary Sanction Due to Conflict of Interest: Appeal Dismissed
Summary of the Facts
A lawyer had previously participated as a notary in the certification of a donation and then represented a party in a legal dispute that sought to assert claims against other heirs regarding this donation. The responsible cantonal disciplinary commission accused the lawyer and his colleague, who co-signed the petition, of a conflict of interest and imposed a disciplinary penalty of CHF 600 each. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Ticino confirmed the sanction. The affected parties subsequently appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the Portal.
2C_427/2025: Non-Renewal of a Residence Permit and Expulsion
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________, a Jamaican national, married a Swiss citizen in March 2022 and received a residence permit under family reunification. After the separation of the marriage, the Office for Migration and Integration of the Canton of Aargau ordered on August 29, 2024, the non-renewal of the residence permit and expulsion from Switzerland. The legal remedies filed against this decision were rejected by both the legal service of the migration office and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Aargau. A.________ then filed an appeal with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the Portal.
1C_380/2024: Building Permit for 5G Mobile Communication Facility: Review of Emission Thresholds and Legal Questions
Summary of the Facts
Sunrise UPC GmbH applied for the construction of a mobile communication facility on a building in Lucerne. After several public requirements and revisions, the construction application was approved. The building permit was challenged before various instances, among other reasons for a suspected violation of the right to be heard, as well as questions regarding compliance with the precautionary principle and emission thresholds. The Cantonal Court of Lucerne last supplemented the building permit with an additional condition. The complainants filed an appeal with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the Portal.