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 dispositive parts. 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.
5A_786/2025: Question of inadmissibility regarding family law measures
Summary of the Facts
The complaint concerns family law measures regarding the daughter B.________, born in 2013, which were taken over and continued by the Family Court of Bremgarten at the request of the KESB. The Cantonal Court of Aargau did not admit the complaint of the parents and the child due to the non-payment of the cost advance. The father requested the Federal Court to overturn the decision of inadmissibility and the family law measures as well as to grant free legal assistance and suspensive effect.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1**: The subject of the proceedings is solely the question of whether the lower court rightly did not admit the complaint. It is explained that the complaint must contain a substantive engagement with the considerations of the contested decision. - **E.2**: The complainant did not substantively address the inadmissibility considerations of the lower court. Instead, he challenges the earlier order rejecting the request for free legal assistance and the measures themselves, which are not the subject of the proceedings. - **E.3**: The complaint is evidently insufficiently substantiated, and therefore cannot be admitted. - **E.4**: The request for suspensive effect is moot. - **E.5**: Due to poor prospects of success, the request for free legal assistance is rejected. - **E.6**: Court costs are imposed on the complainant.
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The complaint was dismissed, the request for free legal assistance was also denied, and court costs were imposed.
7B_639/2025: Judgment on the complaint regarding the recusal request against the public prosecutor
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ requested the recusal of a public prosecutor in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation for unlawful entry. The Cantonal Court of Zurich rejected the request in a decision dated May 30, 2025. A.________ appealed this decision to the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
The lower court rejected the recusal request with detailed reasoning according to Art. 56 StPO. The complainant did not provide a substantiated justification demonstrating why the decision of the lower court should be unlawful or unconstitutional. The complainant raised appellate criticism, which did not meet the qualified objection requirements according to Art. 42 para. 2 and Art. 106 para. 2 BGG. To the extent that the complainant made accusations regarding other alleged procedural errors and events (e.g., an eviction), these were not relevant to the current subject of dispute. The complaint proved to be obviously unfounded, and therefore could not be admitted in the simplified procedure according to Art. 108 para. 1 BGG. The request for free legal assistance was also denied due to lack of prospects of success.
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The complaint was not admitted, and the request for free legal assistance was denied.
5D_42/2025: Decision regarding the waiver of costs and free legal assistance
Summary of the Facts
The complainant requested the waiver of court costs from the Cantonal Court of Thurgau in a divorce or KESB proceeding. The Cantonal Court rejected the request on the grounds that she did not qualify as needy nor had she sufficiently exhausted her capacity for self-support. She subsequently filed a complaint to the Federal Court, requesting the waiver of costs and free legal assistance.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The judgment of the Federal Court is written in the language of the contested decision, German, according to Art. 54 para. 1 BGG.
- **E.2:** The dispute value of CHF 1,334.45 does not meet the minimum dispute value of CHF 30,000.--, which is why only the subsidiary constitutional complaint is possible (Art. 113 BGG). This requires that the violation of constitutional rights be clearly and detailed objected to; appellate remarks are inadmissible.
- **E.3:** The complainant refers to the prohibition of arbitrariness (Art. 9 BV), yet her argumentation is appellate and does not contain sufficiently precise objections regarding arbitrariness. The complaint is therefore obviously insufficiently substantiated and cannot be admitted.
- **E.4:** Due to the obvious lack of prospects of success, the requirements for free legal assistance are not met (Art. 64 para. 1 BGG).
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The Federal Court did not admit the complaint and rejected the request for free legal assistance.
8C_488/2024: Decision regarding disability insurance
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ registered with the disability insurance due to Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, initially for vocational reintegration measures and later with a pension request. After conducting a preliminary decision procedure, the IV office rejected her pension request with a disability degree of 18%. Upon complaint, the Insurance Court of the Canton of St. Gallen increased the disability degree to 22%, but still denied a pension claim. With the present complaint to the Federal Court, the complainant requests a pension based on a disability degree of at least 50%, or alternatively, the referral for the procurement of an expert opinion.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_269/2025: Accident insurance - disability pension
Summary of the Facts
A.________, employed as a caretaker at B.________ AG and accident-insured with the Swiss Mobiliar Insurance Company AG, was seriously injured on November 4, 2019, while crossing a pedestrian crossing. The Mobiliar rejected a claim for a disability pension and only granted an integrity compensation based on a 15% integrity loss. The Insurance Court of the Canton of St. Gallen overturned this decision and granted A.________ a disability pension of 38% as of December 1, 2021. The Mobiliar contested this decision before the Federal Court with a complaint.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_668/2024: Disability pension: Assessment of work capacity and disability degree
Summary of the Facts
A.________, born in 1968, repeatedly applied for benefits from the disability insurance after her initial pension request was denied. The medical reports from various times formed the basis for the assessment, with diagnosed health restrictions and work capacity in adjusted activities being evaluated differently. Despite health complaints and a claimed disability degree of more than 28%, the IV office as well as the lower court denied a pension claim.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_774/2025: Cost distribution after withdrawal of appeal in a divorce proceeding
Summary of the Facts
The judgment concerns the appeal of the complainant against a dismissal decision of the Cantonal Court of Lucerne. After withdrawing his appeal in connection with the ancillary consequences of the divorce, the proceedings were declared moot, and he was imposed the total process costs as well as the party costs of the opposing party. The complainant now seeks a half or mutual cancellation of these costs and a referral of the matter for a reassessment of the divorce judgment.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_730/2024: Complaint of the Swiss Heritage Society against the demolition permit for the Luxram building
Summary of the Facts
The Swiss Heritage Society (SHS) filed a complaint against the decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Schwyz, which allowed the demolition of the so-called Luxram building. The building is located in the groundwater protection area of Au and partly within the forest distance. The SHS argued that the demolition permit affects federal tasks and that there is a legitimacy to file an objection. The lower courts rejected this and did not admit the objection.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_24/2025: Access to the audio recording in the disability insurance procedure
Summary of the Facts
In this case, the complainant A.________ requested access to the complete audio recording created during an examination by the IV office of the Canton of Zurich. The administration denied unrestricted delivery of the audio recording and offered alternative options such as listening on-site or access via a time-limited link. The complainant saw this as a violation of his right to be heard. The Social Security Court of the Canton of Zurich rejected the complaint as far as it admitted, which was confirmed by the Federal Court.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_777/2025: Decision regarding precautionary measures for personality protection
Summary of the Facts
The complainant requested precautionary measures against Google LLC, Google Switzerland GmbH, and Google Ireland Ltd. from the Cantonal Court of Zug, as search results on Google linked him to allegations of sexual offenses. The Cantonal Court of Zug did not admit the requests due to lack of local jurisdiction and the adjudicated matter. The Cantonal Court of Zug also rejected the appeals due to insufficient justification. The complaint to the Federal Court does not contain sufficient constitutional objections and was also not addressed.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_772/2025: Inadmissibility in data protection proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The complainant had submitted various legal requests in the context of data protection law to the Cantonal Court of Zug, including the release and deletion of personal data by the opposing party. The Cantonal Court did not admit the main applications (points 1-3 and 6-8) due to lack of conciliation and lack of procedural prerequisites. On the complainant's appeal, the Cantonal Court of Zug refused to admit the appeal due to insufficient justification of the legal remedy. The complainant then turned to the Federal Court and requested, among other things, the annulment of the judgment of the Cantonal Court, referral of the matter, and free legal assistance.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_688/2025: Inadmissibility of the complaint in criminal matters
Summary of the Facts
The complainant appealed against a decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich, which did not admit his complaint against the summons for the enforcement of two replacement imprisonment sentences. The reason for the inadmissibility was the non-payment of the cost advance after the request for free legal assistance had been denied. The Federal Court then examined the complainant's complaint.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_112/2025: Inadmissibility of the complaint against the rejection of the revision of a restoration order
Summary of the Facts
A.________ made unauthorized changes and soil fill on his property in the Canton of Neuchâtel. The responsible cantonal department demanded the restoration of the original state, including the removal of 15,000 m³ of material. A.________ repeatedly requested a revision of the decision, citing new evidence that allegedly proves an old approval from 1992. The cantonal authorities rejected the revision requests as the presented facts were not new and did not cover the period of the disputed changes.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_476/2025: Inadmissibility in connection with access to information
Summary of the Facts
A.________ requested access to the records of a closed supervisory procedure. The District Council did not admit the request. The Government Council of the Canton of Zurich set deadlines for the payment of a cost advance, which A.________ did not meet, leading to the suspension of the appeal procedure and later again not being admitted. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich also did not admit the complaint as it was submitted after the expiry of the complaint deadline. A.________ then turned to the Federal Court.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_845/2025: Complaint against the decision regarding house search and seizure
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ requested the annulment of a decision by the cantonal criminal authority regarding the execution of a house search and seizure and the referral of the matter for reassessment. The background is a series of reports by the authority of regional protection 15 regarding possible restrictions of freedom of B.________ by the son A.________. The cantonal instance had declared a complaint against the original decision inadmissible.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_480/2025: Interim decision regarding state liability and cost advance
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a complaint regarding state liability with the Federal Administrative Court without providing a valid mailing address in Switzerland. The Federal Administrative Court informed him that notifications would be published in the Federal Gazette until a mailing address was provided and a cost advance of CHF 1,000.– would be required. A.________ turned to the Federal Court, requesting a "recourse complaint" and seeking relief from the cost advance.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_293/2024: Judgment on the ban on commercial advertising by municipal regulation
Summary of the Facts
The city of Lancy in the Canton of Geneva has passed a regulation that prohibits commercial advertising on public land and on private land visible from the public area. This regulation was approved by a popular vote. Several affected companies filed a complaint against the regulation with the Federal Court. They primarily complain about a violation of the freedom of economic activity (Art. 27 BV), the right to property (Art. 26 BV), and the principle of competitive neutrality and free market access (Art. 8 and Art. 2 LMI).
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_105/2024: Decision on the request for contract access in connection with surveillance software
Summary of the Facts
A.________ submitted a request to the Federal Office of Police (fedpol) based on federal legislation regarding the principle of transparency (LTrans) to obtain information about a possible contract with the company B.________ for the use of a surveillance program. Fedpol rejected the request, citing various exceptions to transparency, including security interests and confidentiality of contract terms. After a mediation process, A.________ was again denied access, leading to a complaint before the Federal Administrative Court. The Federal Administrative Court confirmed fedpol's decision.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_568/2025: Inadmissibility of the complaint regarding free legal assistance in criminal proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a complaint against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Graubünden, which rejected his request for free legal assistance. The occasion was his request to file a criminal complaint for abuse of office against five judges of the Regional Court of Albula. The Cantonal Court noted that the claims made by the complainant were of a public law nature and would have to be pursued through state liability. Therefore, the complaint on the merits was hopeless.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_92/2023: Inadmissibility of a complaint against a decision to discontinue (fraud, usury)
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a criminal complaint against B.C.________, the operator of a kiosk, for allegedly exploiting his psychological weakness and trust to take approximately 200,000 francs from him. The public prosecutor of the Canton of Geneva discontinued the proceedings with a decision dated June 20, 2022. The complaint by A.________ against this discontinuation decision was rejected by the Criminal Chamber of the upper cantonal instance with a decision dated February 28, 2023. Subsequently, A.________ appealed to the Federal Court.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_776/2025: Complaint regarding precautionary measures related to personality protection
Summary of the Facts
The complainant initially requested super-provisional measures from the Cantonal Court of Zug against several Google companies to remove search results linking him to alleged sexual offenses. Due to lack of jurisdiction, the request was not admitted. Subsequently, the complainant focused the proceedings on Google Ireland Ltd. and filed multiple legal remedies, including with the Cantonal Court of Zug. The Federal Court ultimately evaluates the complainant's appeal as he raises constitutional objections against the inadmissibility decision of the Cantonal Court of Zug.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_771/2025: Judgment on precautionary measures in the context of personality protection
Summary of the Facts
After the termination of a short employment relationship at the law firm of the opposing party, the complainant filed several legal requests with the Cantonal Court of Zug, including requests in the area of data protection and personality protection. The Cantonal Court did not admit some of the requests in the summary procedure, as no coherent statements regarding a threatened violation of rights were provided. The Cantonal Court of Zug did not admit the appeal due to insufficient justification. The complainant then filed a complaint to the Federal Court.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_433/2025: Decision regarding the qualification for a complaint in connection with a building application
Summary of the Facts
The complainants, tenants of apartments in the affected buildings, filed a complaint against the approval of a building application by H.________ SA through the municipality of Vevey, although they had not raised an objection during the public display of the building application. The lower instance, the Court of Administrative and Public Law of the Canton of Vaud, deemed the complaint inadmissible and stated that a builder is not obliged to inform the tenants 40 days before submitting the building application, as demanded by the complainants.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_414/2025: Inadmissibility of the complaint against tax assessment
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was assessed by the tax administration of the Canton of Zug for capital benefits from pension funds regarding cantonal and municipal taxes as well as direct federal tax for 2024. A.________ filed an objection against the assessment, which was dismissed by the tax administration, as far as it was even admitted. The complaint against this objection decision was also dismissed by the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zug. A.________ then filed a complaint with the Federal Court and primarily requested the annulment of the judgment of the lower instance.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_523/2025: Interim decision in the area of disability insurance – admissibility of the complaint
Summary of the Facts
The assistance contribution for A.________ was increased by the IV office, but not conclusively decided, as the case was referred back to the IV office for further examination of the facts.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_517/2025: Judgment on the calculation of the AHV old-age pension
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________, a German national, received an AHV old-age pension from the Swiss Compensation Office starting in March 2021 based on an insurance period of 23 years and 9 months. He demands the consideration of additional insurance years (1992–1998), which he believes should be credited through his ex-wife, who was voluntarily insured in Switzerland at that time. His objection as well as the complaint against the corresponding decision of the compensation office were dismissed by the lower instances.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_787/2025: Decision on the inadmissibility regarding the assumption of a measure
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, a daughter born in 2013 of separated parents, filed a complaint against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Aargau, asserting, among other things, that as a capable child, she has a right to access justice. The Federal Court did not admit the complaint, as it did not provide sufficient justification and had no relation to the legal core discussion of inadmissibility due to non-payment of the cost advance.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9D_14/2025: Inadmissibility of the complaint against the denial of free legal assistance in the tax relief procedure
Summary of the Facts
The taxpayer A.________ requested the waiver of her tax liabilities for the tax period 2022 from the tax administration of Basel-Stadt. After her request and her objection decision were denied, she turned to the Tax Appeal Commission, which also dismissed the request. The Appellate Court of Basel-Stadt subsequently denied the taxpayer free legal assistance in the following appeal proceedings, leading her to file a complaint with the Federal Court.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_766/2025: Inadmissibility of a complaint against the establishment of guardianship
Summary of the Facts
The married parents of a Syrian family filed a complaint against the establishment of guardianship by the Cantonal Court of St. Gallen for their two minor children. This occurred against the background of repeated police interventions due to verbal and physical conflicts within the family. The complaint is directed against the order by the KESB and the cantonal instances, citing an alleged violation of constitutional rights as well as the principle of proportionality.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_751/2025: Decision regarding a complaint about legal obstruction
Summary of the Facts
The complainants (a GmbH in liquidation and its managing director) filed a complaint against the opening of bankruptcy proceedings by the Cantonal Court of Glarus, while simultaneously alleging a systematic obstruction of justice by the cantonal authorities. The Federal Court pointed out that it can only hear complaints against decisions of the last cantonal instances (Art. 75 BGG). The procedure of the complaint about legal obstruction was dismissed as moot, as the opening of bankruptcy had since been confirmed by the Cantonal Court of Glarus in the main proceedings.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_163/2025: Decision on rural property law and party standing
Summary of the Facts
In 1989, B.________ SA was incorporated into the B.________ Holding SA structure. A.________, a former tenant of an agricultural operation of B.________ SA, disputed her party standing and a supposed right to declare the nullity of the statutes of the relevant companies, as well as her party standing in a separate procedure for the approval of a subdivision of a property.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1275/2024: Judgment on the complaint regarding obstruction of justice due to access to the appeal hearing
Summary of the Facts
A request for access to the appeal hearing before the Cantonal Court of Bern was denied, with the number of spectators being limited. A.________ claimed after the hearing that access was unlawfully denied, and requested reimbursement of expenses, compensation, and party compensation, as well as comprehensive information on the procedural design. The Cantonal Court denied the reimbursement and refused to issue a contestable decision. The Federal Court assesses the case as formal obstruction of justice.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_426/2025: Inadmissibility of the complaint against tax assessment
Summary of the Facts
A.________ received capital benefits from the second and third pillars and was therefore assessed for the tax period 2024. Her objection against the assessment was dismissed by the Cantonal Tax Office of Zurich and the Tax Appeals Court of the Canton of Zurich. The Administrative Court later did not admit the complaint, as it exhibited querulous characteristics and contained formal deficiencies. The complainant then turned to the Federal Court and requested, among other things, the referral of the matter and the determination that the tax assessment concerned a non-existent person.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_547/2025: Inadmissibility of the complaint regarding a cost advance
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ approached the Federal Court and filed a complaint against an interim decision of the Federal Administrative Court with her submission dated September 24, 2025. In this, she was requested to pay a cost advance of CHF 1,000.– by October 14, 2025. She requested, in the context of the complaint, exemption from court costs or free legal assistance.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.