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 subsequent 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.
4A_383/2025: Judgment regarding definitive enforcement opening
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed a complaint against the judgment of the Cantonal Court of Valais, Civil Chamber, which denied him the definitive enforcement opening in the collection case No. xxx of the Oberwallis debt collection office. At the same time, the enforcement opening was granted to the respondent, the Department of Social Affairs of the State of Valais, for CHF 86,469.00 plus interest of 5% from March 5, 2024.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1**: The complaint addressed to the Federal Court does not meet the legal justification requirements according to Art. 42 para. 2 and Art. 106 para. 2 BGG. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed in simplified proceedings (Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b BGG).
- **E.2**: The request of the appellant for free legal assistance is denied, as the complaint appears hopeless from the outset (Art. 64 para. 1 BGG).
- **E.3**: Due to the outcome of the proceedings, the appellant is ordered to pay the court costs (Art. 66 para. 1 BGG). No party compensation is awarded to the respondent, as no response was obtained, and thus no compensable costs were incurred (Art. 68 para. 2 BGG).
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The complaint was not admitted, the request for free legal assistance was denied, and court costs were imposed.
5A_537/2025: Withdrawal of a complaint regarding the enforcement of an arrest
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a complaint on July 4, 2025, in civil matters against the decision of the Surveillance Chamber of the Offices of Enforcement and Bankruptcy of the Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva dated June 26, 2025. The matter concerned the question of the enforcement of an arrest. In light of a new Federal Court judgment dated July 24, 2025, in a similar case between the same parties, A.________ withdrew his complaint on September 22, 2025.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1**: The withdrawal of the complaint by A.________ is acknowledged. The competent single judge decides accordingly in accordance with Art. 32 para. 2 BGG regarding the dismissal of the case. - **E.2**: According to Art. 66 para. 1 BGG, the complaining party is considered to have lost the case upon withdrawal of the complaint. The court costs are set at a reduced amount due to the withdrawal (1,500 CHF). - **E.3**: The respondent is awarded a compensation of 3,000 CHF for legal expenses. The cantonal debt collection office, which acted in an official capacity, is not entitled to any costs.
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The complaint is withdrawn, thus the case is dismissed from the register, and court costs are imposed.
5A_596/2025: Judgment regarding the interpretation of a maintenance agreement
Summary of the Facts
The father A.A.________ and the mother C.A.________ divorced in 2014. In connection with the consequences of the divorce, a maintenance agreement was made for the children, including B.A.________, which was later supplemented by a new agreement in 2015. According to this new agreement, maintenance was to be paid until the age of majority and beyond until the completion of the children's education, subject to Art. 277 para. 2 ZGB. In 2025, B.A.________ requested an interpretation of the 2015 maintenance agreement, which was decided in her favor by the local court. The father first approached the cantonal court, which declared his appeal inadmissible, and then submitted a complaint to the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The cantonal instance pointed out that the legal remedy submitted by the father did not contain sufficient justification as required according to Art. 311 para. 1 ZPO. In particular, specific legal arguments were lacking regarding both the maintenance obligation and the order to pay court costs. - **E.2:** The father did not raise substantial objections before the Federal Court against the reasoning of the non-admission decision of the previous instance. Thus, the complaint did not meet the requirements of Art. 42 para. 2 BGG and Art. 106 para. 2 BGG. - **E.3:** The Federal Court concluded that the father raised no relevant objections and declared the complaint entirely inadmissible based on Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b BGG.
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The complaint was declared inadmissible, and the court costs were imposed on the appellant.
8C_358/2025: Decision on the reimbursement of supplementary benefits
Summary of the Facts
A.________, recipient of supplementary benefits from the cantonal AHV/IV/IPG compensation fund for herself, her husband, and two minor children, was asked to repay unlawfully received benefits amounting to CHF 15,172. This was due to a correctly calculated and unreported increase in income of her husband from January 2021 to March 2024. Her request for the conditions of repayment was rejected by both the fund and the cantonal court proceedings, as the requirement of good faith was not met.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
4A_314/2025: Judgment on the reconsideration of a request for free legal assistance
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ requested free legal assistance and legal representation from the High Court of the Canton of Zurich for an appeal against a judgment of the District Court of Hinwil. This request was denied due to lack of evidence of need. A subsequent request for reconsideration was also denied. The appellant then filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
8C_495/2025: Decision regarding unemployment insurance (process requirement)
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, who had no claim to insolvency compensation in an employer-like position according to Art. 51 para. 2 AVIG, filed a complaint against the decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Schwyz dated July 14, 2025. The Federal Court did not admit his legal remedy in simplified proceedings due to insufficient justification according to Art. 108 para. 1 lit. a and b BGG.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
4A_179/2025: Judgment regarding unjust enrichment
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ AG provided legal services between 2015 and 2017 for companies in the B.________ Group, including B.________ Holding AG and C.________ AG. It remained disputed whether the mandates and fees were lawful. The plaintiffs (respondents) initiated various proceedings and argued that some services were rendered without valid engagement. The previous instances decided differently: The Cantonal Court dismissed the action; however, the High Court partially recognized unjust enrichment and granted the plaintiffs refunds.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
2C_501/2025: Judgment regarding the issuance of residence permits EU/EFTA
Summary of the Facts
The Romanian nationals A.________ and B.________, represented by B.________ as the mother of their daughter C.________, applied for EU/EFTA residence permits at the Zurich Migration Office. The applications were denied; the Security Directorate and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich confirmed these decisions. A complaint against the judgment of the Administrative Court was filed.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
5A_357/2024: Decision regarding measures to modify maintenance during separation
Summary of the Facts
A married couple, married since 2009 and parents of three children, has been living apart since 2018. The husband requested the termination of maintenance payments to his wife in December 2020 as part of measures to amend the protective measures of the marital community. In the first instance, the maintenance payments were modified and further reduced by the cantonal judiciary. The husband filed a complaint with the Federal Court to further adjust the results of the maintenance regulations.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
7B_943/2023: Decision regarding the admissibility of a complaint related to the non-admission decision of a criminal complaint
Summary of the Facts
A.________ SA filed a criminal complaint on September 13, 2022, for abuse of trust against B.________ SA and its board members C.________ and D.________. It claimed that despite a contract dated July 2, 2020, and requests for the return of entrusted funds totaling CHF 116,834.39, they had not made any reimbursement and had put forward false reasons to evade their obligations. The cantonal Ministry of Public Security refused admission to the criminal complaint by decision dated May 16, 2023. The complaint against this decision at the Chambre pénale de recours of the Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva was dismissed on October 27, 2023.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
4F_32/2025: Federal Court judgment regarding a revision request against a previous Federal Court judgment
Summary of the Facts
The applicant requests the revision of a Federal Court judgment (4D_114/2025) dated June 30, 2025, which did not admit his complaint against a decision of the Court of Appeals of Basel-Stadt dated May 16, 2025. The revision request is based on alleged procedural defects, but does not sufficiently present revision grounds according to Art. 121 ff. BGG.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
7B_617/2025: Non-admission and non-entry due to lack of justification
Summary of the Facts
The previous instance did not admit the complaint of the appellant because the process deposit was not paid on time. The appellant contested the decision and stated that he did not personally receive the deadline for payment, but that it was delivered to his subtenant. However, he did not provide any evidence for this.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
4A_399/2025: Judgment on the non-admission decision in a civil dispute
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed a lawsuit with the Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich, submitted a request for free legal assistance, which was denied, and did not pay the court cost advance set for him. The Commercial Court then did not admit the lawsuit. The appellant filed a complaint against this decision to the Federal Court.