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 dispositional parts. For the other 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 customize your newsletter and receive the latest rulings tailored to your areas of law.
2C_421/2024: Revocation of Residence Permit EU/EFTA and Expulsion
Summary of the Facts
The Kosovar national A.A.________ married a Swedish national in 2018 and subsequently received a residence permit EU/EFTA. After separating in 2020, the residence permit was revoked because the marriage was deemed to be purely formal. A.A.________ requested the continuation of the residence permit, primarily citing Art. 50 para. 1 lit. b AIG, which provides important personal reasons as a basis for continued right of residence after the dissolution of a marriage.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1**: The appeal in public law matters is admissible because the appellant asserts a claim to a residence permit. The appeal will be admitted. - **E.2**: The Federal Court only examines whether there are errors in the application of the law. Arbitrary factual findings by the lower court could be corrected. - **E.3**: The EU/EFTA residence permit of the appellant was based on a derived right from the marriage to a Swedish national. After the separation, there is no longer any entitlement, as the marriage was assessed as purely formal. - **E.4**: - **E.4.1**: The appellant claims to have suffered psychological violence from her in-laws, but fails to provide specific and verifiable details. The lower court could easily assume the rejection of a post-marital hardship case. - **E.4.2**: The return to Kosovo was not assessed by the lower court as a life-threatening risk. Neither economic disadvantages nor social stigma can justify a hardship case, as the minimum requirements assumed in the case law of the Federal Court are not met. - **E.4.3**: There is no violation of federal law by the lower court. - **E.5**: The appeal is found to be unfounded and is dismissed.
Summary of the Dispositonal Part
The appeal is dismissed and the court costs are imposed on the appellant.
7B_553/2025: Appeal Against the Lifting of the Sealing of Seized Electronic Data Carrier
Summary of the Facts
A.________, former board member and liquidator of the company B.________ SA, which is subject to a criminal proceeding by the Federal Prosecutor (MPC), requested the sealing of an electronic data carrier that was obtained in the context of an investigation procedure according to Art. 265 StPO. The MPC later requested the lifting of the sealing, which was approved by the competent judge for coercive measures of the canton of Ticino. A.________ filed an appeal claiming that the documents had been obtained under inadmissible circumstances, violated procedural rights, and were therefore not admissible.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Court conducted a review of the admissibility of the appeal and concluded that the appeal against the decision of the judge for coercive measures has direct access to the Federal Court (according to Art. 78 and 93 BGG). The appeal meets the formal requirements and is therefore admissible. It was claimed that the judge for coercive measures had not examined A.________’s arguments and thus committed a formal error of refusal of law. However, the Federal Court found that the lower court had indeed examined A.________’s arguments, particularly the circumstances of the data carrier’s acquisition and the statutory reasons for the sealing. No error of refusal of law occurred. A.________ argued that the data had been obtained through deception in violation of his procedural rights. The Federal Court ruled that the acquisition of the data carrier was conducted correctly according to Art. 265 StPO. A.________ was informed of his right to refuse the release and voluntarily waived the sealing. There was no evidence of deception or unlawful interrogation that could have led to the inadmissibility of the evidence. The Federal Court found that A.________ had not presented sufficient reasons or evidence for the protection of a legally relevant secret that could have prevented the further use of the information by the prosecuting authorities. The argumentation was deemed inadequate.
Summary of the Dispositonal Part
The appeal is dismissed, and A.________ is imposed court costs of CHF 4,000.--.
9C_401/2025: Decision on the Inadmissibility of Appeals Regarding the Property Transfer Tax of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft
Summary of the Facts
This concerns two appeals against the decisions of non-admittance by the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft dated June 19, 2025. Both appeals relate to the property transfer tax of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft and were combined by the Federal Court in a ruling. The Federal Court did not consider the appeals as the appellant did not fulfill the minimum requirements according to Art. 42 para. 1 and 2 BGG in her submission.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The Federal Court combines the two proceedings as they are substantively identical and involve the same legal questions.
- **E.2:** An appeal must contain a clear justification that explains in what way the contested decision violates the law.
- **E.3:** In the case of a contested decision of non-admittance, the subject of the dispute is limited to whether the lower court correctly did not admit the legal remedy, not to the substantive legal question.
- **E.4:** The Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft did not admit the appeals as the cost advances were not paid by the appellant.
- **E.5:** The appellant did not establish a connection to the reasons for the decision of non-admittance by the Cantonal Court but only presented substantive arguments that are irrelevant for the present procedure. Therefore, the appeals do not meet the requirements of the Federal Court Act.
- **E.6:** The Federal Court refrains from imposing court costs due to circumstances and states that the application for legal aid thus becomes moot.
Summary of the Dispositonal Part
The proceedings were combined, the appeals were not admitted, and no court costs were imposed.
2C_598/2024: Ruling on the Residence Permit of a Serbian National
Summary of the Facts
The Serbian national A.A.________, who has lived in Switzerland since 2005 and last held a residence permit for family reasons, applied for a new residence permit in the Canton of Zurich in 2021 after his previous permit had expired. The cantonal authorities rejected the application, as the permit was considered forfeited due to late extension requests and other intensified immigration law reasons (including dependence on social assistance, criminality, and lack of professional integration).
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_278/2025: Non-admittance of an Appeal Concerning the Dismissal of a Planning Approval Procedure Related to a High Voltage Power Line
Summary of the Facts
In connection with the 220 kV transmission line Siebnen-Samstagern, a planning approval procedure was initiated, which later turned into an independent expropriation procedure. After Swissgrid AG withdrew the original planning approval application, the Federal Office for Energy (BFE) dismissed the procedure. The dismissal order was challenged before the Federal Administrative Court, which did not admit the appeal. Subsequently, the affected property owners filed an appeal in public law matters and a subsidiary constitutional complaint before the Federal Court.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_345/2025: Inadmissibility of the Appeal
Summary of the Facts
The Caisse interprofessionnelle AVS of the Fédération des Entreprises Romandes (FER CIAB 106.5) held A.________ responsible under Art. 52 LAVS for a damage from unpaid social security contributions (CHF 166,337.20). The decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Jura dated May 13, 2025, confirmed this liability for damages. A.________ subsequently filed an appeal with the Federal Court on June 14, 2025. He was allowed to pay the court costs (CHF 6,000) in installments, with the first partial payment made late.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_180/2025: Ruling on the Recognition of an Accident Event and Causation in Accident Insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a former employee of a bakery, asserted a claim for benefits from her accident insurance AXA. She claimed that her health complaints were due to an accident on October 24, 2017. AXA denied natural accident causality and ceased benefits from September 2021. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Graubünden confirmed this decision.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2C_424/2025: Decision on Party Status in an Administrative Assistance Matter
Summary of the Facts
A.________ SA, whose name was mentioned in a documentation for a French request for international assistance in tax matters, demanded to be involved as a party in the administrative assistance proceedings. The Federal Court had to examine whether A.________ SA has the right to party status based solely on its mention in the documentation and whether the present legal question can be regarded as a "legal question of fundamental importance."
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_547/2025: Inadmissibility of the Appeal Due to Non-Payment of the Cost Advance
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed an appeal on June 16, 2025, in criminal matters against a decision of the Cantonal Court of Zurich, III. Criminal Chamber, which confirmed the non-admittance decision of the District Office of Bülach. The Federal Court set deadlines for the appellant to pay a cost advance, which were not met.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_431/2025: Ruling on Federal and Municipal Taxes as well as Direct Federal Tax for the Tax Periods 2010-2012
Summary of the Facts
The appellants, a couple from the Canton of Thurgau, requested a retroactive postponement of the taxation of a liquidation gain from the tax period 2012 to the tax periods 2010 and 2011. The tax administration of the Canton of Thurgau did not consider the request due to a missed deadline. After exhausting the cantonal legal remedies, the appellants filed an appeal with the Federal Court, as they deemed the start of the deadline and the adherence to the deadline in the lower court proceedings as incorrect.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_452/2025: Inadmissibility of the Appeal in an Accident Insurance Case
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ challenged a ruling of the Insurance Court of the Canton of Aargau dated May 22, 2025, which was delivered to him on June 17, 2025. However, he submitted his appeal only on August 19, 2025, thus after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2C_331/2024: Ruling on the Non-Renewal of Residence Permits
Summary of the Facts
A.________, an Ethiopian national, moved to Switzerland in 2020 with her son B.________ after marrying an Eritrean national residing in Switzerland. After separating from her now naturalized husband, her residence permit was not renewed, and she was ordered to leave the country. Her financial situation required support through social assistance. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed her appeal against the non-renewal order but granted her free legal representation.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.