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 rulings. 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.
7B_546/2025: Judgment on the request for disqualification in connection with a supplementary expert report
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted in previous judgments for various offenses, including attempted murder. As part of the execution planning and after the expiry of an outpatient measure, the Office for Criminal Execution and Reintegration of the Canton of Zurich ordered a supplementary psychiatric expert report. A.________ rejected the proposed expert and requested their disqualification. This request was denied by both the Office and the Directorate of Justice and the Interior as well as the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich. A.________ appealed to the Federal Court in criminal matters.
Summary of the Considerations
E.1: The Federal Court examines the admissibility of the appeal ex officio. It is a self-contained interim decision regarding a request for disqualification, against which the appeal is admissible (Art. 92 para. 1 BGG). It is noted that the appeal does not meet the statutory requirements for justification. E.1.3: The presentation of the facts by the appellant deviates from that of the cantonal authorities without raising an arbitrary objection. Therefore, it cannot be addressed. E.1.4: Legally, the appellant repeats their arguments without engaging with the considerations of the lower court in a substantive manner. The appeal is deemed insufficiently justified. E.1.5: Due to the lack of justification, the Federal Court does not consider the appeal. E.2: The application for free legal assistance is rejected due to lack of prospects of success. The court costs are set according to the financial situation of the appellant, with no party compensation being granted.
Summary of the Ruling
The Federal Court did not consider the appeal and dismissed the application for free legal assistance; the court costs were imposed.
5A_556/2025: Decision on the requirements for free legal assistance
Summary of the Facts
The appellant applied for free legal assistance at the District Court of Willisau in connection with proceedings over an alleged bodily or personality injury due to orthodontic treatment. The District Court rejected the application as the appellant did not fulfill their obligation to cooperate and provide justification. The Cantonal Court of Lucerne did not consider the appeal against this decision due to insufficient justification.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1**: The issue in the proceedings before the Federal Court exclusively concerns the legality of the non-admission decision of the lower court (BGE 135 II 38 E. 1.2; 139 II 233 E. 3.2). A substantive engagement with the considerations of the lower court is required for this (Art. 42 para. 2 BGG, BGE 140 III 115 E. 2; 142 III 364 E. 2.4). - **E.2**: The appeal contains no sufficient justification, but only refers generally to an incomplete assessment of the situation. A convincing violation of the obligations to cooperate or justify in the cantonal proceedings is not presented. - **E.3**: Due to the obvious inadequacies of the appeal, particularly the lack of legal argumentation, a decision is made in simplified proceedings (Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b BGG). - **E.4**: The court costs of CHF 1,000.-- are to be borne by the appellant (Art. 66 para. 1 BGG).
Summary of the Ruling
The appeal was not upheld and the court costs were imposed.
2C_514/2023: Appeal against animal protection measures of the veterinary service of the Canton of Aargau
Summary of the Facts
The veterinary service of the Canton of Aargau conducted several unannounced inspections at the agricultural operation of the appellant between 2019 and 2021 and repeatedly criticized significant violations of animal protection regulations (missing ear tags, inadequate hoof care, insufficient provision of animals, etc.). Despite repeated warnings, the violations persisted. The animal protection measures of the veterinary service were confirmed by the cantonal administrative court, after which the appellant appealed to the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
E.1: There is a permissible final decision of a last cantonal instance, so the appeal is admitted. E.2: The Federal Court only examines legal objections as far as they are clear and sufficiently justified. An examination of the factual findings of the lower court can only occur in cases of obvious incorrectness. E.3: The appellant does not directly contest the animal protection measures but rather the proportionality of the prior inspection and its legality. E.4: The lower court did not violate the appellant's right to be heard, as it thoroughly and sufficiently justified why the inspection did not constitute a violation of the principle of proportionality. E.5: The inspection of December 9, 2021, and the measures based on it were proportionate and lawful. There was a public interest in checking compliance with the Animal Protection Act, and the duration of the inspection and the number of people present were in line with legal requirements. E.6: The appellant's claims that the inspection was disproportionate and restricted procedural rights were neither sufficiently substantiated nor legally significant.
Summary of the Ruling
The appeal is dismissed and the court costs are imposed on the appellant.
5A_670/2025: Decision on the appeal procedure regarding owners' association resolutions
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ AG attempted to challenge resolutions of a condominium association (approval of the operating cost statement, discharge grants, and budget approval). After the District Court of Visp dismissed the action, the Cantonal Court of Valais rejected the appeal as far as it was considered. The A.________ AG subsequently filed an inadequately justified appeal to the Federal Court, which was directly forwarded by the Cantonal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_385/2024: Decision on party status in a criminal proceeding
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, filed a criminal complaint against G.________ and B.________ for alleged abuse of positions of trust (Art. 138 StGB) and disloyal management (Art. 158 StGB). She claimed that the actions of the accused caused an economic damage that directly affected her involvement in the H.________ Group Inc. The lower courts rejected her party status on the grounds that the allegedly damaged asset was owned by the company and A.________ was only indirectly affected.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_657/2025: Non-admission of appeal against the opening of bankruptcy
Summary of the Facts
The District Court of Winterthur opened bankruptcy proceedings against the appellant due to an unpaid claim of CHF 1,799.15 in favor of the respondent. The appellant unsuccessfully appealed to the Cantonal Court of Zurich, which dismissed the appeal as there was a lack of evidence to secure the costs of the bankruptcy court and to prove solvency. The appellant paid the claim after the district court ruling was issued. Before the Federal Court, he requested the annulment of the bankruptcy ruling on the grounds that the bankruptcy claim and other outstanding costs had been settled in time.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_663/2025: Decision on precautionary measures regarding personality protection
Summary of the Facts
The appellant requested precautionary measures to protect his personality against Google Ireland Limited, after reports linked his name with allegations of alleged sexual offenses in a Google search. The Cantonal Court of Zug did not consider the application due to lack of local jurisdiction, and the Cantonal Court of Zug dismissed the subsequent appeal due to insufficient justification. The appellant then filed an appeal with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_148/2024: Decision on the construction of a school extension and a footbridge
Summary of the Facts
The city of Montreux planned construction projects for a school extension and the construction of a footbridge over Rue de la Gare. The properties are partially located in a federal inventory area ISOS and feature heritage-protected structures. Several neighbors raised objections against the construction projects, which were rejected by the municipality of Montreux. The affected objectors then filed complaints with the cantonal instance and finally with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_5/2025: Decision on the protection of cultural heritage: Inclusion of a villa in the inventory
Summary of the Facts
The owner of a villa in Collonge-Bellerive (GE) filed a complaint against the inclusion of his property and the villa standing on it in the cantonal inventory of protected objects. The villa, built between 1959-1960, is part of a group of four buildings inspired by modern Californian architecture and is historically and artistically classified as valuable. The responsible cantonal authorities and expert committees (SMS and CMNS) supported the protective measure.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_97/2025: Decision on the partial lifting of seals
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court deals with the request from A.________ and several companies he manages against a decision of the Cantonal Court of Freiburg (TMC) of December 12, 2024. This decision concerned the partial lifting of seals on documents and data carriers seized during a search, which are relevant in a criminal investigation concerning suspected embezzlement of COVID-19 loans as well as title and money laundering offenses.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5D_39/2025: Decision on free legal assistance in the appeal process
Summary of the Facts
The appellant initially filed a complaint against the decision of the KESB Region Gossau of April 28, 2025, which examined the report and the bill of the guardian, and requested free legal assistance. The Administrative Appeal Commission of the Canton of St. Gallen denied the indigence claim due to an asset of around CHF 300,000 and required a cost advance. The Cantonal Court did not consider the complaint as the appellant did not sufficiently engage with the grounds for the denial of indigence. The appellant subsequently appealed to the Federal Court and presented further, non-substantive requests.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_669/2025: Adjustment of representation guardianship and restriction of legal capacity
Summary of the Facts
The appellant originally had a supportive guardianship according to Art. 393 ZGB, which was supplemented by a representation guardianship with income and asset management according to Art. 394 para. 1 and 2 in conjunction with Art. 395 para. 1 ZGB. Following a report from the guardian, the KESB Oberland West, with a decision dated June 17, 2025, restricted the legal capacity of the appellant and adjusted the representation guardianship. The Cantonal Court of Bern did not consider the complaint against this decision. The appellant then turned to the Federal Court with the request to lift the restrictions and terminate contact with the KESB.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_503/2025: Judgment on the admissibility of an appeal against security in criminal proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The Statthalteramt Bezirk Meilen discontinued the criminal investigation against B.________ for minor assaults and minor property damage. A.________ appealed to the Cantonal Court of Zurich, which required him to provide a process security of CHF 1,800, threatening non-consideration. A.________ then filed an appeal to the Federal Court and requested free legal assistance.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_158/2025: Judgment on gross traffic rule violation and arbitrary objections
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was punished based on a penal order of the Public Prosecutor's Office Basel-Stadt for gross violation of traffic rules, driving an unsafe vehicle, and violating the traffic rules ordinance. The Appellate Court of the Canton of Basel-Stadt acquitted him of the charge of driving an unsafe vehicle and confirmed the conviction for gross traffic rule violation and violation of the traffic rules ordinance. A.________ appealed to the Federal Court to be acquitted of the gross traffic rule violation and to achieve a reassessment of the cost consequences.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_577/2025: Decision on guardianship
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, who has sole custody of her son B.________, opposed the establishment of a guardianship by the KESB Mittelland Nord. This was initially established as a precaution and later definitively. In the decision of March 17, 2025, the KESB assigned specific tasks to the guardian and issued directives to the appellant. On July 15, 2025, the appellant filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1F_15/2025: Revision of a federal court ruling concerning non-admission of an appeal in public law matters
Summary of the Facts
The applicant A.________ filed a criminal complaint against prosecutor B.________ for abuse of office, deprivation of liberty, and kidnapping on July 12, 2023. The Cantonal Court of Zurich denied authorization for prosecution on October 7, 2024. The Federal Court did not consider the appeal filed against this decision on December 19, 2024, in simplified proceedings according to Art. 108 para. 1 BGG. In a submission dated July 14, 2025, the applicant requested a revision of this federal court ruling.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_146/2025: Judgment on maintenance calculation in divorce
Summary of the Facts
The appellant (A.________) and the respondent (B.________) have been married since 2011 and have two children together (C.________ and D.________). After separating in February 2018, the respondent filed a unilateral divorce petition in 2020. The first-instance court initially set the maintenance contributions for the children higher, but they were partially reduced by the cantonal appeal instance. The appellant appealed to the Federal Court and requested significantly lower maintenance contributions.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_507/2025: Decision on the signing of a care contract by a guardian
Summary of the Facts
The appellant and the father of the child C.________, born in 2016, are under joint parental custody. C.________ was placed under guardianship according to Art. 308 para. 1 and 2 ZGB due to his autism. The paternal grandparents received permission to take C.________ as a foster child with long-term placement. Initially, the parents concluded a care contract with the grandparents in 2021, which provided for a care allowance of CHF 1,800.--. This was signed by all parties involved. In 2024, the guardian proposed a new care contract with a care allowance of CHF 3,465.60 based on the increased care burden due to the autism. The appellant repeatedly refused to sign the new contract. The KESB then instructed the guardian to sign. The Cantonal Court of Bern did not consider the mother's complaint against this decision due to lack of legal request and justification.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_662/2025: Decision on the non-admission of an appeal regarding a seizure certificate
Summary of the Facts
The proceedings concerned the seizure of a condominium and the calculation of the appellant's minimum subsistence. The District Court of Muri annulled the original calculation of the minimum subsistence and the seizure certificate and instructed the enforcement office to make a new decision. The appellant filed an appeal against this dismissal decision with the Cantonal Court of Aargau, which did not consider it. The Federal Court examined the admissibility of the appellant's appeal against the Cantonal Court's non-admission decision.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_46/2025: Decision on the question of the impartiality of forensic experts
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, who has been in psychiatric detention in Switzerland according to Art. 64 StGB for years, requested a new psychiatric assessment by experts outside the Canton of Geneva. However, the Tribunal d'application des peines et des mesures (TAPEM) appointed experts who work in the same institution as the authors of previous reports. The appellant submitted a request for their disqualification, which was rejected by the cantonal instance (Chambre pénale de recours). The appellant then appealed to the Federal Court, again demanding the disqualification of the experts and proposing a new assessment by external individuals.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_379/2025: Decision on flight suitability in public law matters
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a former flight attendant, requested a review of her medical flight suitability after the responsible company doctor denied her flight suitability based on psychological and psychiatric assessments. The Aviation Medical Service of BAZL rejected her appeal, as did the Federal Administrative Court against this decision. A.________ then appealed to the Federal Court, requesting a reassessment of her flight suitability, including new assessments and alternative medical evaluations.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_202/2025: Judgment on migration law review regarding residence and settlement permits
Summary of the Facts
The Turkish national A.________ applied for the extension or retention of their residence permits after several residence permits in Switzerland and various divorces, ultimately together with his wife B.________ and their two children (C.________ and D.________). The procedure was initiated after A.________ was criminally convicted for deceiving the authorities by conducting a sham marriage. His previous residence permits and those of his family were subsequently revoked or not extended by the Migration Office of the Canton of Zurich. The judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich confirmed these measures.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_398/2024: Judgment on gross traffic rule violation
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ collided on March 2, 2022, at an intersection in V.________ with a right-of-way delivery van. The Public Prosecutor's Office Solothurn initially accused her of driving in an unfit state and alternatively gross violation of traffic rules. The Solothurn-Lebern court sentenced her to a conditional fine and a penalty. The Appellate Court of the Canton of Solothurn confirmed this judgment. The appellant appealed in criminal matters to the Federal Court and requested a mitigation of the penalty or acquittal from the gross violation of traffic rules.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_573/2025: Withdrawal of parental custody
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ opposed a decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Schwyz, which did not consider her submission due to lack of jurisdiction and forwarded it to the Cantonal Court of Schwyz. The appellant's submission concerned the withdrawal of parental custody and other allegations.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_240/2025: Decision on the dispute regarding ownership of property parts
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed an action in contradiction against B.________ and C.________, as he doubted the registration of the property parts in the land register as property of the two sons of the former owner D.________. He claimed that the transfer of ownership by gift from D.________ to his sons merely served to protect the assets from seizures related to a criminal investigation and claims. The lower courts denied the fiction of property registration and confirmed the legality of the gift and the rights of the sons.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_907/2023: Decision on the issue of party status in a non-admission order
Summary of the Facts
The engineer A.________ filed a criminal complaint with the Central Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Canton of Valais in 2018 for various crimes, including abuse of office, disloyal management of public interests, and passive corruption. He claimed that due to violations of procurement law during the construction of the parking lot B.________ in U.________, he was denied participation in the tender process and thus a lucrative contract. The Public Prosecutor's Office decided not to examine the criminal complaint, as no criminal offenses were fulfilled. The lower court rejected A.________'s appeal due to lack of standing.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_521/2025: Inadmissibility of the appeal regarding the annulment of a guardianship
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, under a representation guardianship with asset management since 2016, applied for its annulment. Both the KESB Uster and the District Council of Uster and the Cantonal Court of Zurich rejected the corresponding applications and appeals of the appellant. With further submissions, the appellant claimed before the Federal Court that the guardianship should be lifted.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_429/2025: Federal Court decision regarding the inadmissibility of an extraordinary revision request in unemployment insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________ submitted a letter to the Federal Court, which was interpreted as an extraordinary revision request, to revise a decision of the cantonal authority, the Direction générale de l'emploi et du marché du travail des Kantons Vaud (DGEM). In his letter, he presented earlier decisions, including a cantonal court decision from April 15, 2025.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_280/2025: Violation of official secrecy and obligation to expedite
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ was charged with violating official secrecy as he allegedly forwarded confidential information from police information systems to a third party as a police officer. The Cantonal Court of Aargau sentenced him to a conditional fine and a connection penalty. A.________ claims before the Federal Court an arbitrary determination of the facts and a violation of the obligation to expedite and requests his acquittal.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_654/2025: Calculation of minimum subsistence and wage garnishment: Non-admission of appeal
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, classified in a garnishment group of the enforcement office Emmental-Oberaargau, was pursued by the Social Directorate of the city of Burgdorf. He filed an appeal against the calculation of the minimum subsistence of the enforcement office with the Cantonal Court of Bern, which dismissed it on August 7, 2025. The appellant then filed an appeal with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_600/2025: Judgment on the challenge of a procedural order
Summary of the Facts
The appellant opposed an order of the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft from July 22, 2025, in which various submissions of the opposing party were acknowledged. He requested the annulment of this order, a decision on custody applications, and provisional urgent relief regarding custody. In addition, he demanded free legal assistance and claimed a nullity of the appeal decision of June 17, 2025, due to an incorrect judge abbreviation.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_671/2025: Inadmissibility of an appeal regarding income garnishment and installment payments
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, who was pursued by the Social Directorate of the city of Burgdorf, unsuccessfully approached the Cantonal Court of Bern in the matter of income garnishment and installment payments in a previous proceeding. The court did not consider the appeal due to delays, lack of jurisdiction, and insufficient justification. The appellant subsequently filed an appeal with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_245/2024: Dispute over the termination clause in a rental agreement
Summary of the Facts
The parties are in dispute over the termination clause of a rental agreement for a commercial property. The plaintiff, the landlord, demands payment of outstanding rent after the termination by the defendant, considering the notice period and the validity of the termination as disputed. The rental relationship began on December 1, 2017, with a fixed term of five years; the clause for early termination is to be interpreted differently.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_524/2025: Inadmissibility of formal objections and dismissal of the appeal
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ appeals against the judgment of the Cantonal Court of Bern. It had found her guilty of multiple simple bodily injury and threats and imposed a conditional fine of 60 daily rates of CHF 30.-- with a probation period of 2 years. Various proceedings were discontinued due to limitations or withdrawal of criminal complaints. The lower court also recognized a violation of the obligation to expedite. The appellant demands acquittal or partial remittance of the case as well as compensation, free legal assistance, and findings on legal violations in the cantonal proceedings.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_80/2024: Decision on the determination of an agricultural business according to Art. 7 BGBB
Summary of the Facts
A.________ seeks to establish that several properties outside the construction zone in U.________ represent an agricultural business according to Art. 7 BGBB, in order to assert a related right of first refusal. The Office for Agriculture of the Canton of Schwyz and the Administrative Court repeatedly denied the existence of such a business, particularly due to a labor requirement of less than 1 SAK and a lack of stall capacity, which ultimately led to the appeal before the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_378/2025: Judgment on a data protection complaint
Summary of the Facts
The appellant requested information from the respondents regarding various personal data and correspondence related to real estate transactions, foreclosure sales, and land registry applications based on the Data Protection Act. The District Court of Zurich dismissed the request for information, and the Cantonal Court of Zurich confirmed this decision, while rejecting a challenge request from the respondents. The Cantonal Court particularly stated that the request for information concerning one of the respondents constituted an obvious abuse of rights.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_445/2025: Inadmissibility of an appeal in criminal law
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ appealed to the Federal Court against a decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Vaud, which had declared her appeal against a non-admission order of the cantonal public prosecutor's office from January 31, 2025, inadmissible.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_403/2025: Judgment on delay of justice and recognition of statelessness
Summary of the Facts
The appellant requested, among other things, the recognition of statelessness from the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) and filed a complaint for delay of justice against the SEM and the Federal Administrative Court. The Federal Administrative Court did not consider the appeal due to non-payment of the cost advance. The appellant then filed an appeal with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_230/2024: Appeal regarding construction permit for the project at the Vengeron site
Summary of the Facts
The judgment concerns the appeal of A.________ SA against the permission for construction work at the Vengeron site on the shores of Lake Geneva. The aim of the project is to create a harbor for commercial vessels, a swimming area, and environmental renovations, as well as to establish infrastructure such as buildings and recreational areas. The appeal was filed after the cantonal authorities conducted extensive studies and approved the construction work.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_534/2025: Decision on the non-admission question of an appeal regarding the non-initiation of a criminal procedure
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed an appeal against the presidential order of the Cantonal Court of Zug, which on April 30, 2025, did not consider an appeal against the non-initiation of a criminal procedure. The criminal procedure concerned allegations against an employee of B.________ AG.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_292/2025: Judgment on the appeal regarding violation of official secrecy
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, a police officer, was accused of retrieving data about an arrest from the police information system and allegedly forwarding it by phone to a third party. The first-instance court acquitted the appellant, while the higher court convicted him for violation of official secrecy. The appellant sought acquittal with his appeal to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_665/2025: Judgment regarding the extension of protective placement
Summary of the Facts
The appellant was initially placed in protective custody by the KESB Nordbünden on February 12, 2025, after already being medically admitted on January 8, 2025. At the request of the clinic on July 3, 2025, the KESB Nordbünden extended the placement on July 21, 2025, transferring the authority to discharge from the clinic. An appeal against this decision was rejected by the Cantonal Court of Graubünden on August 11, 2025.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_620/2025: Inadmissibility of an appeal regarding precautionary measures in personal visitation
Summary of the Facts
The KESB revoked the appellant's right to determine the residence of her child and regulated personal visitation between the two. After several adjustments to this regulation, the Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn dismissed the mother's request for a precautionary order for extended visitation rights. The mother filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.