Latest Judgments of the Federal Court
Here you will find the latest judgments of the Federal Court (BGer) from bger.ch. For the first three judgments, we provide detailed summaries with facts, considerations, and dispositions. For the other judgments, you will find a summary of the facts. The complete summaries of all judgments are available on the Lexplorer portal. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest judgments tailored to your areas of law.
6B_772/2024: Judgment of the Federal Court in Criminal Matters
Summary of the Facts
In the initial case, the appellant A.________ was convicted in the first instance for professional fraud, repeated forgery, deception in the establishment of companies, and poor management. H.________ SA and other companies were used to deceive insurance companies and credit institutions by presenting fictitious employment contracts and forged medical certificates. The sentence was three years imprisonment, 18 months of which were suspended, with a two-year probation period. The CARP confirmed the main points of the conviction but rejected some charges. A.________ requested the Federal Court to establish "statute of limitations" and overturn the judgment, which was denied.
Summary of Considerations
- **E.1**: The Federal Court generally declares the appeal admissible. However, the complaint of the second appellant, challenging the reduction of her attorney fees, is considered insufficiently reasoned and is dismissed. - **E.3**: The CARP recognized a violation of the principle of procedural acceleration (Art. 408 para. 2 StPO) but correctly considered this as mitigating. The appellant's argument regarding "procedural statute of limitations" is unfounded. - **E.4–6**: The appellant raises various allegations, particularly regarding the alleged failure to consider her right to comment (Art. 147 StPO) and the evidence. The Federal Court finds that the documents and evidence presented were sufficient to support the conviction and that the cantonal authorities acted lawfully. - **E.7**: The appellant challenges the legal qualification of the offenses attributed to her, without convincingly refuting the factual findings of the cantonal courts. These challenges are dismissed as unfounded.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint was dismissed and the court costs were imposed on the appellant.
6B_680/2024: Repeated Poor Management
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court deals with a complaint from the Ministry of the Canton of Ticino against the judgment of the cantonal appeal authority, which partially acquitted the accused of the charge of repeated poor management regarding four companies. The case involved, among other things, the incorrect exemption of capital shares, economic abuse, and violations of duties in company management.
Summary of Considerations
- **E.1:** The complaint from the Ministry is admissible. The lower court was correctly called as the last cantonal instance. - **E.4:** The Federal Court finds the assessment of the lower court regarding the company J.________ Sagl (capital postponements and insufficient balance sheets) to be inconclusive and sees a potential violation of Art. 165 StGB. - **E.5:** Regarding M.________ SA, the inadequate initial capitalization was not sufficiently considered. The lower court also mistakenly ignored significant indications of losses incurred, suggesting a violation of Art. 165 StGB. - **E.6:** In the case of K.________ SA, the Federal Court criticizes the failure to consider the not fully exempted capital shares and other breaches of duty. The company was over-indebted from the start, which was not adequately addressed. - **E.7:** The reconstruction of N.________ SA also suffers from a lack of inclusion of relevant details such as the capital situation and violations such as forged accounting, which corresponds to a comprehensive assessment of poor management.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint is partially upheld, the acquittals are overturned, and the case is referred back for re-evaluation.
8C_372/2025: Judgment on Invalidity Pension
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, reapplied for pension benefits from the disability insurance in March 2022. Based on an expert opinion from medexperts AG and supplementary statements, the IV authority of the Canton of St. Gallen denied entitlement to a disability pension, as the determined degree of disability was only 16%. The cantonal lower court confirmed this decision. The appellant appealed to the Federal Court and requested that the matter be referred back to the lower court for further clarification and a new decision. Alternatively, she requested the granting of a disability pension.
Summary of Considerations
- **E.1:** The Federal Court examines the alleged legal defects according to Art. 95 ff. BGG and applies the law ex officio (Art. 106 para. 1 BGG). It bases the judgment on the factual findings of the lower court unless these are obviously incorrect (Art. 105 para. 2 BGG). - **E.2:** For the assessment of the pension entitlement from September 2022, the principle of pension revision is analogously applicable. The temporal comparison basis is the decision of August 2016 and that of July 2024. The lower court correctly laid out the relevant legal bases. - **E.3:** The lower court acknowledged a relevant deterioration in health but recognized the appellant's ability to work for a disability-adapted occupation, based on a degree of disability of at most 36%. The statistical bases applied and the consideration of a 15% deduction are not contrary to federal law. - **E.4:** Complaints regarding the evaluation of evidence and the assessment of the appellant's degree of disability, particularly concerning the valid income and the possibilities of employment in the balanced labor market, were rejected by the Federal Court as appellate and unfounded. The accusation of insufficient specification of job opportunities does not hold in light of the legal norms.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint was dismissed, and the court costs were imposed on the appellant.
7F_23/2025: Judgment Concerning a Request for Revision
Summary of the Facts
The applicant A.________ requests the revision of a judgment of the Federal Court dated December 17, 2024 (7B_1138/2024), in which the Federal Court did not consider his complaint. The original judgment concerned a late-filed complaint against a decision and a supplementary resolution of the Cantonal Court of Zurich. The applicant justifies the request for revision, among other things, by allegedly new facts and an alleged denial of justice.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_297/2025: Decision Regarding the Refusal to Combine Criminal Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, a lawyer, is at the center of five separate criminal proceedings in the Canton of Vaud, involving allegations such as fraud, attempted fraud, attempted coercion, and violations of professional duties. She requested the combination of all proceedings. However, the public prosecutor decided only on a partial combination and rejected the consolidation of all proceedings. The appellant appealed against this decision, which was partially upheld. The Federal Court is now reviewing the decision of the cantonal appeal chamber.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_520/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ requested the exclusion of a recording of a telephone conversation from September 17, 2024, from the criminal investigation. He argued that the recording was made in violation of criminal law provisions and was therefore inadmissible. The district attorney of La Côte rejected the request. The Chamber for Criminal Complaints of the Cantonal Court of Vaud confirmed this decision. A.________ subsequently filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_180/2024: Judgment on Construction and Planning Law
Summary of the Facts
A sole owner and his wife applied for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a multi-family house with a parking garage for two adjacent plots. Following an objection from neighbors, namely a condominium owners' association, the jurisdiction was transferred to the municipal council of Eschenbach due to disqualification reasons. This council approved the building application with conditions and requirements. The objecting ownership of the adjacent condominium property lodged an administrative court appeal, which was dismissed by the Cantonal Court of Lucerne. Subsequently, the appellants brought their appeal to the Federal Court, seeking to overturn the judgment of the Cantonal Court and refer the matter back for re-evaluation.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_629/2025: Non-Entry on a Complaint Due to Lack of Justification in Proceedings According to Art. 108 BGG
Summary of the Facts
The appellant turned to the Federal Court against the non-entry order of the Cantonal Court of Zug, I. Complaint Chamber, concerning the objection to a penal order. The Cantonal Court decided on June 13, 2025, not to enter the complaint, as it lacked sufficient justification and grievance from the appellant.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_508/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint in Criminal Matters
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed a complaint in criminal matters against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Thurgau. This court had rejected his complaint against the non-initiation order of the public prosecutor's office in Kreuzlingen, to the extent that it entered into the matter. The submission of the appellant to the Federal Court was not sufficiently justified and did not meet the legal requirements according to Art. 42 para. 2 and Art. 106 para. 2 BGG.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_614/2024: Decision on the Complaint Concerning Negligent Serious Bodily Injury, Arbitrary Action, and the Principle of "In Dubio Pro Reo"
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted by the District Court of East Vaud on February 27, 2023, for various offenses, including negligent serious bodily injury, insult, coercion, violence, or threats against authorities or officials, and sentenced to eight months of imprisonment. A previously suspended sentence was revoked, and a measure according to Art. 63 StGB was ordered. At the same time, A.________ was required to pay a compensation of CHF 10,000 to a former employee (B.________) for emotional distress. The appeal against this judgment was dismissed by the Court of Appeals of the Canton of Vaud on April 25, 2024. A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court, particularly requesting the annulment of his conviction for negligent serious bodily injury and the issuance of a new decision regarding the assessment of the penalty.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_467/2025: Decision on a Late Complaint in the Area of Disability Insurance
Summary of the Facts
The complaint was directed against a decision of the Insurance Court of the Canton of St. Gallen in the area of disability insurance. The complaint was not submitted within the 30-day period according to Art. 100 para. 1 BGG and also did not meet the justification requirements.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_647/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint Regarding the Delivery of Legal Remedy Documents
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, frequently involved in proceedings before the Federal Court, demands in connection with a decision to approve an accountability report of the guardian of his child by the KESB Zurich (February 13, 2025) that no delivery domicile be required or that electronic reachability be equated to a delivery domicile. The Cantonal Court of Zurich did not enter the complaint on July 7, 2025, due to late submission and denied a claim for exclusively electronic communication.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_530/2024: Decision Regarding Old Age and Survivors Insurance (Pension and Claim Compensation)
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was the managing director of B.________ Sàrl, which was dissolved and removed from the commercial register due to insolvency in 2014. The cantonal compensation office of Geneva demands from him CHF 35,280.75 as damages for unpaid social security contributions and related costs from 2012 to 2014. Since the claim was not settled, the office decided to deduct CHF 941 monthly from the appellant's old-age pension starting in April 2023. The cantonal judiciary dismissed his complaint against this decision.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_421/2025: Judgment on Unemployment Insurance (Process Prerequisite)
Summary of the Facts
The appellant contested the recovery of mistakenly paid daily allowances by the Office for Unemployment Insurance of the Canton of Bern. The lower court denied the waiver of the recovery amounting to CHF 2,083.65 and the good faith of the appellant.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_679/2025: Decision on the Non-Consideration of a Recusal Request Against a District Judge
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed a complaint with the Cantonal Court of St. Gallen against a garnishment announcement from the Debt Collection Office and a complaint about service supervision. The Cantonal Court forwarded the submissions to the District Court of St. Gallen for jurisdiction, where the single judge made procedural orders. The appellant filed a recusal request, which the Cantonal Court rejected in a circulation decision due to lack of justification.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_333/2025: Decision Regarding the Withdrawal of a Complaint in a Matter of Disability Insurance
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed a complaint on June 10, 2025, against a judgment of the Cantonal Court of Vaud, Court for Social Insurance, dated May 1, 2025. In a letter dated August 22, 2025, he announced the withdrawal of his complaint.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_366/2025: Inadmissibility of Process Prerequisites
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed a complaint against the judgment of the Cantonal Court of Lucerne on May 14, 2025, regarding supplementary benefits to the AHV/IV. After she did not pay the required cost advance within the statutory deadline and requested an extension, the Federal Court decided on the process prerequisites.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_235/2024: Judgment on Qualified Serious Violation of Traffic Rules
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was driving outside built-up areas at a speed of at least 148 km/h on May 15, 2020, resulting in a conviction for qualified serious violation of traffic rules. The Cantonal Court of Glarus sentenced him to an unconditional prison term of 30 months and enforced a previously suspended fine. The Court of Appeal of the Canton of Glarus reduced the prison sentence to a partially suspended sentence of 30 months (of which 15 months are to be served) and confirmed the fine. A.________ subsequently filed a complaint in criminal matters to the Federal Court, requesting a milder punishment.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_989/2024: Judgment on Negligent Arson
Summary of the Facts
A.________, operator of an agricultural biogas plant, was initially acquitted by the ad hoc police judge of the district of Lac from the charge of negligent arson. Upon appeal by the public prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Fribourg convicted A.________ of negligent arson but refrained from imposing a penalty. The procedural costs incurred in the first instance and in the appeal process were imposed on A.________. The hangar, where materials for biogas production were stored, had self-ignited and led to a fire.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_635/2024: Decision of the Federal Court Regarding Building Permit and Application of the Aesthetics Clause
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ AG applied for a building permit for a multi-family house in the municipality of Domleschg, located in a zone protected according to ISOS and BLN. Following an objection from neighboring property owners (B.________ and C.________), the Administrative Court of the Canton of Graubünden annulled the municipal building permit by invoking the aesthetics clause of the Building Act. A.________ AG appealed to the Federal Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_305/2025: Inadmissibility of Facilitated Naturalization
Summary of the Facts
In the present case, the appellant A.________ requested the annulment of the decision of the Federal Administrative Court, which rejected her facilitated naturalization and that of her child. The procedure concerns the question of whether the naturalization was obtained under false information. Due to the suspicion of an unstable marital community, the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) annulled the facilitated naturalization of the appellant. The Federal Administrative Court confirmed this decision. The appellant then filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_489/2024: Federal Court Judgment on a Criminal Dispute Concerning Federal Legislation on Gambling
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted by the Police Court of the Canton of Geneva (judgment of December 7, 2023) for unauthorized provision of gaming machines according to Art. 130 para. 1 lit. a LJAr and was sentenced to a conditional fine of 75 daily rates of CHF 30, as well as an immediately payable fine of CHF 450 and costs. The affected devices and their keys were confiscated and released for destruction. The appeals chamber of the Geneva judiciary adjusted the penalty in its decision of May 7, 2024, but largely confirmed the judgment. A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court, demanding acquittal and the return of the confiscated items.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.