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 dispositions. 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 configure your newsletter and receive the latest rulings tailored to your legal fields.
1C_667/2024: Withdrawal of Driver's License for Serious Traffic Rule Violation
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________, a police officer, drove during an emergency call with a service vehicle in a speed limit of 50 km/h at a speed of 108 km/h and without an activated siren. This constituted a serious violation of traffic rules. Lower courts had convicted A.________ criminally, and the withdrawal of the driver's license was determined by the competent authorities through various decisions and partially reviewed. The driver's license was ultimately revoked for 12 months. A.________ filed an appeal and requested the conversion of the measure into a warning.
Summary of the Considerations
The appeal is admissible as it concerns a final cantonal instance decision regarding an administrative measure in the field of traffic safety. A.________ invokes the principle of *lex mitior* (Art. 2 para. 2 StGB), which prescribes the application of the more favorable law. The Federal Court states that this does not apply here, as the new law did not bring about a substantial change compared to the old regulation. A detailed interpretation of Art. 16 para. 3 LCR shows that a reduction of the minimum duration of the driver's license withdrawal (2 years according to Art. 16c para. 2 letter abis LCR) is possible, but there is no obligation to lower it bindingly. No legal violation or disproportionality is present. The lower court adequately considered the circumstances, such as the complainant's work as a police officer, but also the severity of the violation of traffic regulations (e.g., driving without a siren and excessive speed). The wording of the law does not allow for the replacement of the driver's license withdrawal with a mere warning letter. This is a mandatory measure due to a serious violation of traffic rules.
Summary of the Disposition
The appeal is dismissed, and the court costs are imposed on the complainant.
1D_8/2025: Decision Regarding Constitutional Complaints Against the Refusal of Authorization to Open a Criminal Investigation
Summary of the Facts
The complainants A.A.________ and B.A.________ filed a criminal complaint for abuse of office, passive bribery, acceptance of advantages, and fraud against four individuals, including three serving members and one former member of the Supreme Court of the Canton of Graubünden. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Graubünden recommended to the Commission for Justice and Security of the Grand Council not to grant the authorization for prosecution. The Commission decided on December 3, 2024, not to grant the authorization for the criminal investigation. The complainants subsequently raised a subsidiary constitutional complaint to the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
**E.1:** The four complaints concern identical resolutions of the Commission. The Federal Court consolidates the proceedings. **E.2:** The authorization for prosecution is a prerequisite for the criminal proceedings. Complaints against decisions regarding its refusal are inadmissible in public law matters, which is why only the subsidiary constitutional complaint can be examined. **E.3:** The complainants meet the requirements of Art. 115 lit. a BGG, as they could not participate in the cantonal proceedings. However, they do not have a legally protected interest according to Art. 115 lit. b BGG and are therefore only legitimate to complain regarding their procedural rights. A conditional withdrawal of the complaints is not accepted (Art. 32 para. 2 BGG). **E.4:** Only constitutional rights can be asserted before the Federal Court. **E.5:** The lower court acknowledged the complainants, sufficiently justified why the authorization is not granted, and communicated the decisions. No legal violation is present. **E.6:** The complaints are unfounded and are dismissed as far as they can be considered.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaints are dismissed, the proceedings are consolidated, and the court costs are imposed on the complainants.
1D_3/2025: Assessment of the Refusal of Authorization to Open a Criminal Investigation Against Government Members
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and B.________ filed a criminal complaint against all government members of the Canton of Graubünden for various offenses in June 2024. After examining the criminal complaint, the Public Prosecutor's Office requested not to grant authorization. The Commission for Justice and Security of the Grand Council decided to follow this recommendation and not to grant authorization for the criminal investigation. Subsequently, the complainants raised a subsidiary constitutional complaint to the Federal Court to overturn these decisions.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The summary of the complaints, which are substantively identical, justifies the consolidation of the proceedings. - **E.2:** The authorization according to Art. 30 para. 2 EGzStPO/GR is a prerequisite for the criminal proceedings, which is, however, treated in an administrative law procedure. A legal remedy in public law matters is inadmissible (Art. 83 lit. e BGG). - **E.3:** The subsidiary constitutional complaint is admissible according to Art. 113 ff. BGG. Since the complainants had no right to participate and the contested decisions have a political character, the legitimacy to complain is severely restricted. There is neither a legally protected interest nor the possibility of a comprehensive factual complaint, but only the review of the observance of procedural rights. - **E.4:** The lower court fulfilled the procedural rights of the complainants by acknowledging the criminal complaint, providing a justification, and communicating the decisions. - **E.5:** The lower court sufficiently justified that there are no sufficient indications of criminally relevant behavior of the respondents and that the complaints are therefore unfounded. No violation of constitutional rights is present.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaints were dismissed, and the court costs were imposed on the complainants.
7B_408/2025: Decision on Inpatient Therapeutic Measures According to Art. 59 StGB
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted by the Basel-Stadt Criminal Court in 2015 for several sexual offenses and other misdemeanors to a prison sentence of seven years with suspended execution, as well as to an inpatient therapeutic measure according to Art. 59 StGB. This measure was extended multiple times and accompanied by incidents (including violations of conditions, possession of prohibited pornography), which ultimately led to the revocation of the executions and a return to closed measures. In 2023, the justice authority first requested placement in custody, and later again an inpatient therapeutic measure. The lower court confirmed this order until 2027.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the portal.