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 with facts, considerations, and dispositions. 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.
4D_109/2025: Ruling on the Question of Legal Opening and Court Costs
Summary of the Facts
The appellant requested before the High Court of the Canton of Bern the waiver of court costs from a legal opening procedure, which was rejected. He filed an appeal to the Federal Court. Several submissions, partly from him and partly from his mother, were submitted, which were not sufficiently justified according to the requirements of the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The High Court of the Canton of Bern rejected the appellant's request. The appeal to the Federal Court does not meet the legal requirements. In particular, the justifications according to Art. 42 para. 2 and Art. 106 para. 2 BGG are obviously deficient. - **E.2:** The appeal will therefore not be dealt with in the simplified procedure (Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b and para. 3 BGG). - **E.3:** The request for free legal assistance is to be rejected, as the appeal appears to be hopeless (Art. 64 para. 1 BGG). There is no possibility for timely improvement of the submission. - **E.4:** The court costs are imposed on the appellant, and no party compensation is granted to the respondent (Art. 66 para. 1 and Art. 68 para. 3 BGG).
Summary of the Disposition
The appeal is not dealt with, court costs are imposed on the appellant, and no party compensation is granted.
4A_377/2025: Decision on Free Legal Assistance
Summary of the Facts
The appellant sought the declaration that a claim of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern had lapsed and submitted a request for free legal assistance in this context. This request was rejected by the Regional Court of Bern-Mittelland on May 23, 2025, due to hopelessness. The High Court of the Canton of Bern confirmed the rejection of the request on July 9, 2025, also rejected the application for free legal assistance in the appeal procedure, and imposed the costs of the appeal procedure on the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal against this decision to the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The Federal Court finds that the appellant's submission is based on querulous and abusive litigation and is inadmissible according to Art. 42 para. 7 BGG. - **E.2:** The proceedings were concluded in a simplified procedure by the department president, and the reasoning of the ruling is limited to a brief indication of the reason for inadmissibility (Art. 108 para. 3 BGG). - **E.3:** The court costs are to be imposed on the appellant according to Art. 66 para. 1 BGG, with no party compensations granted according to Art. 68 BGG.
Summary of the Disposition
The appeal was not dealt with, and the court costs were imposed on the appellant.
7B_549/2025: Ruling Concerning the Recusal of the Prosecutor in Charge
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed an appeal against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Lucerne dated May 12, 2025, which rejected his request for recusal against Prosecutor Roland Hüsler. The subject of dispute is exclusively this recusal request. All other submissions, especially regarding the substantive challenge of the penal order, were deemed inadmissible.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The Federal Court waived the collection of comments and examined the previous files. - **E.2:** The subject of the dispute is limited to the recusal request; other concerns of the appellant are inadmissible. - **E.3:** The appeal did not meet the legal requirements, as it did not present specific legal criticism of the considerations of the lower court and merely expressed appellate criticism. - **E.4:** The lower court convincingly demonstrated that there are no grounds for recusal according to Art. 56 lit. a-f StPO. The issuance of a penal order alone does not establish a duty to recuse; nor was any serious procedural error evident. - **E.5:** The appellant's criticism regarding the facts and discrimination did not meet the qualified requirements. A violation of the right to be heard could not be proven. - **E.6:** The appeal is obviously unfounded and inadmissible, which justifies a non-admission in the proceedings according to Art. 109 para. 2 lit. a BGG.
Summary of the Disposition
The appeal was not admitted, and court costs were imposed.
7B_398/2025: Appeal Regarding Free Legal Assistance in a Criminal Proceeding
Summary of the Facts
B.________ filed an appeal on March 20, 2025, against the decision of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Frauenfeld, which did not take up her criminal complaint against the Thurgau Bankruptcy Office. During the appeal proceedings before the High Court of the Canton of Thurgau, she stated that the injured party was not herself but the liquidated A.________ GmbH. The High Court rejected her request for free legal assistance on the grounds that her appeal was hopeless, as neither she nor the GmbH had the necessary legitimacy.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the portal.
7B_1153/2024: Ruling on the Admissibility of an Appeal Against a Non-Admittance Decision
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a criminal complaint regarding the behavior of two police officers, B.________ and C.________, among others for threats. The Public Prosecutor's Office of Basel-Landschaft decided on January 4, 2024, not to initiate proceedings. A.________ appealed against this decision to the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft, which dismissed the appeal on April 2, 2024. In the proceedings before the Federal Court, A.________ requested the annulment of the cantonal decision and the mandatory opening of a criminal proceeding against B.________ and C.________.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the portal.
7B_562/2025: Decision on the Appeal Regarding Free Legal Assistance and Representation Authority
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ GmbH in liquidation, represented by the former managing director B.________, filed an appeal in criminal matters against a decision of the High Court of the Canton of Thurgau. In this decision, the request for free legal assistance was rejected due to the hopelessness of the legal remedy. It was also questioned whether B.________ was authorized to represent the GmbH in liquidation legally.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the portal.
5A_644/2025: Inadmissibility of the Appeal and Rejection of Legal Aid
Summary of the Facts
A.A.________ filed an appeal against the decision of the president of the civil division of the Cantonal Court of Jura on July 9, 2025, which refused to suspend the divorce proceedings and rejected legal aid. The Federal Court examined the admissibility of the appeal and found that there was no irreparable legal disadvantage within the meaning of Art. 93 para. 1 lit. a BGG.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the portal.
5A_672/2025: Decision on the Question of Seizure of Income
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ is contesting the calculation of his subsistence level by the Office for Debt Collection of the Canton of Geneva and the wage garnishment carried out on August 4, 2025. The president of the supervisory authority of the debt collection and bankruptcy offices of the Canton of Geneva rejected his appeal for the granting of suspensive effect of his request on August 20, 2025. The appellant is requesting the annulment of this decision and is applying for super-provisional and provisional measures to suspend the garnishment.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the portal.
1C_22/2024: Appeal Regarding the Revision of the Local Planning Scheme of a Municipality in the Canton of Fribourg
Summary of the Facts
The municipality of Corminboeuf, after merging with the municipality of Chésopelloz, conducted a revision of the local planning scheme (PAL) to meet the conditions of cantonal approval and harmonization of the planning of both municipalities. The cantonal authority (DIME) partially approved the revision of the PAL, made amendments, and rejected certain measures, particularly the retention of certain plots as building zones. The municipality appealed against this decision, which was partially upheld by the cantonal administrative court. Subsequently, the municipality turned to the Federal Court to keep the affected plots in the building zone.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the portal.
2C_318/2025: Ruling on the Enforcement Detention of a Deported Person
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a Kenyan citizen, was lawfully deported and ordered to leave Switzerland after his release from an inpatient measure. However, he remained illegally in the country and reoffended. The Migration Office of Zurich ordered enforcement detention multiple times. This was reviewed by cantonal authorities and ultimately confirmed by the Administrative Court of Zurich. The appellant turned to the Federal Court and requested his release and the declaration of the unlawfulness of the detention orders.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the portal.
4A_188/2025: Inadmissibility of the Appeal in Civil Matters and Subsidiary Constitutional Complaint
Summary of the Facts
The Swiss Confederation and the Canton of Lucerne requested the definitive legal opening for CHF 858.95 plus interest from the District Court of Lucerne. The District Court granted the request, and the opposing party appealed to the Cantonal Court of Lucerne, which dismissed her appeal. The opposing party then filed an appeal in civil matters and a subsidiary constitutional complaint to the Federal Court, arguing that the withholding tax should be offset against the taxes of the same year and that the enforcement was therefore inadmissible.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the portal.
7B_478/2025: Ruling on the Postponement of Imprisonment Due to Health Reasons
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was sentenced to three months of imprisonment for wrongful receipt of social assistance benefits. Before starting his sentence, he requested a postponement citing his health condition. A medical report confirmed his ability to serve his sentence, leading to the rejection of the request. The cantonal final decision dismissed his appeal, prompting A.________ to approach the Federal Court.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the portal.
7F_29/2025: Ruling on the Revision Request for a Non-Admittance Decision
Summary of the Facts
A.________ submitted a revision request against the Federal Court ruling of April 11, 2025 (7B_260/2025), in which the Federal Court had not admitted his appeal against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Lucerne dated February 18, 2025, for substantive and formal reasons.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the portal.
1C_18/2024: Ruling on the Amendment of a Local Use Plan
Summary of the Facts
The revision of the local use plan of the municipality of Corminboeuf led to the classification of the previously designated building plot No. 3015 into the agricultural zone. The owners and beneficiaries of a servitude of this plot filed a complaint, which was dismissed by the cantonal court. They criticized before the Federal Court violations of their participation rights and the application of cantonal and municipal provisions in the planning decision.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the portal.