Latest Rulings of the Federal Court
Here you will find the latest 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 Lexplorer portal. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest rulings tailored to your areas of law.
7B_422/2025: Complaint regarding decisions of non-admittance and lack of grounds for complaint
Summary of the Facts
The complainant submitted a complaint to the Federal Court against a decision of the Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court, which had declared his complaints against two decisions of non-admittance by the District Attorney of Lausanne inadmissible. The complainant also requested an exemption from the advance payment.
Summary of the Considerations
E. 1.1: According to Art. 42 para. 1 and 2 BGG, complaints to the Federal Court must be substantiated and clearly state why the contested decision violates the law. Reference is also made to Art. 106 para. 2 BGG, according to which violations of fundamental rights are only examined if they are expressly and detailed by the complainant. E. 1.2: The complainant did not provide sufficient justification to demonstrate the incorrectness of the non-admittance decisions. He also ignored the arguments of the lower court regarding the statute of limitations of the reported facts, which are over 30 years old. E. 1.3: The complainant criticized that he was not granted an additional time frame to improve his complaint. The Federal Court pointed out that such a period is not granted in the absence of justification according to Art. 385 para. 2 StPO. The complainant's grounds are not sufficient to prove a violation of federal law or fundamental rights. E. 1.4: The complaint obviously does not meet the requirements of federal law and is therefore declared inadmissible according to Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b BGG. E. 2: The complainant bears the costs, as his complaint was hopeless from the outset. A request for exemption from the obligation to pay costs is also rejected accordingly.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint was declared inadmissible, the request for free legal aid was denied, and the court costs were imposed on the complainant.
9C_419/2025: Dismissal of a complaint against the refusal of free legal aid
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a complaint against a late objection at the tax office of the canton of Lucerne regarding the tax assessment for the 2024 tax period. After being requested to pay an advance on costs, he applied for free legal aid, which was denied by the Lucerne Cantonal Court due to hopelessness. A.________ challenged this decision before the Federal Court and requested, among other things, the restoration of the objection period.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1.1 to E.1.3:** The Cantonal Court deemed the objection late, as the complainant was capable of extensive correspondence with his former employer despite psychological stress during the objection period. It rejected the conditions for restoring the deadline and considered the complaint hopeless. - **E.2.1 to E.2.4:** The Federal Court found that the complainant did not adequately address the considerations of the lower court and did not present sufficient justification. Furthermore, the Federal Court stated that a separate request for restoration of the deadline was not part of the proceedings and therefore could not be accepted. - The allegations of a violation of the right to be heard and the claimed precarious financial situation were also rejected as unfounded.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint was dismissed, and no court costs were incurred.
7B_810/2025: Decision on the Merits of a Complaint
Summary of the Facts
Since July 2018, the III Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zurich has been conducting a criminal investigation against D.________ for breach of trust. A.________ Sàrl, B.________, and C.________ were admitted as private plaintiffs and filed a complaint on July 11, 2025, for denial of justice in the criminal investigation. They requested precautionary measures, particularly the order for the release of additional bank documents. The Cantonal Court of Zurich rejected this request on July 14, 2025, with a decision and demanded a process deposit. On August 18, 2025, the complainants filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Court. In the meantime, the Cantonal Court declared the present complaint due to the denial of justice as unfounded on August 21, 2025, rendering the subject of the dispute moot.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1**: The criminal complaint according to Art. 78 ff. BGG requires a current legally protected interest, which no longer exists, as the Cantonal Court made the decision on denial of justice on August 21, 2025. The proceedings are therefore moot (see BGE 142 I 135 E. 1.3.1). - **E.2**: A summary examination of the prospects of success shows that the complaint would likely have been unfounded, as precautionary measures do not correspond to the main concern and cannot anticipate a final decision (BGE 139 IV 314 E. 2.3.3). The statements of the Cantonal Court in the decision of July 14, 2025, are correct. - **E.3**: The court costs are imposed on the complainants, as they initiated the proceedings and the reasons for the mootness lie with them (Art. 66 para. 1 and 5 BGG).
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint is dismissed as moot, and the court costs are imposed on the complainants.
9C_392/2025: Decision regarding the payment of the advance on costs in the complaint procedure
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a complaint on July 10, 2025, against the decision of the Camera di diritto tributario of the Cantonal Court of Ticino dated June 5, 2025, regarding cantonal tax and direct federal tax for the tax periods 2017–2018. The Federal Court requested the complainant to pay an advance on costs, which was initially set at CHF 4,000 and later divided into four installments of CHF 1,000 each. The first installment was due on August 29, 2025. This payment and the corresponding proof were not provided.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2C_474/2025: Ruling on expulsion detention and formal requirements of a complaint
Summary of the Facts
A.________, an Algerian national, filed a complaint with the Federal Court against the ruling of the Cantonal Court of Basel-Stadt. The Cantonal Court had confirmed the complainant's expulsion detention due to the risk of absconding and a violation of an existing entry ban for six months until January 23, 2026. The complainant did not submit the contested decision in a timely manner despite being prompted by the Federal Court and also did not meet the justification requirements for a complaint.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2C_509/2025: Decision on the admissibility of the complaint against the non-renewal of a residence permit
Summary of the Facts
The Serbian national A.________ applied for an extension of his residence permit after the final divorce from his spouse residing in Switzerland. The Migration Office of the Canton of Zurich rejected his application. The legal remedies filed against this were also unsuccessful before the Security Directorate and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich. A.________ then filed a complaint in public law as well as a subsidiary constitutional complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2C_504/2025: Non-renewal of the EU/EFTA residence permit (Procedural Questions)
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court against the letter from the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich dated August 28, 2025. At its core, this concerns the issue of exemption from advance payment of costs in the procedure for the extension of his EU/EFTA residence permit. The Administrative Court and previously its President of the 2nd Division had repeatedly rejected the application for free legal aid, noting also abusive or querulous traits in the complainant's submissions. The Federal Court examined the admissibility of the complaint as well as its justification.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_184/2025: Decision regarding the unsealing of a mobile phone
Summary of the Facts
A.________ is being prosecuted in the Canton of Basel-Landschaft for multiple thefts, attempted theft, housebreaking, and property damage. His mobile phone was seized and sealed on January 7, 2025. The coercive measures court of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft authorized the partial unsealing of the mobile phone and the creation of a copy of the data, including location and communication data as well as videos and images, from a specified period. A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court against this decision, with suspensive effect granted during the proceedings.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_406/2025: Ruling on the non-admittance of a criminal proceeding
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ had requested a criminal investigation against B.________, who allegedly exerted physical and verbal violence against her dog and against her. The Zurich-Limmat Public Prosecutor's Office decided not to initiate proceedings. Both parties filed mutual criminal complaints. The Cantonal Court of Zurich dismissed A.________'s complaint against the non-admittance, insofar as it could be considered. A.________ filed a complaint in criminal matters with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_546/2025: Non-admittance of a complaint against an order of the President of the I Civil Law Division
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ submitted a complaint in public law as well as a subsidiary constitutional complaint against an order of the President of the I Civil Law Division of the Federal Court dated September 9, 2025. The order had denied the granting of suspensive effect and the issuance of the advance payment. Furthermore, A.________ was required to pay a cost advance of 800 Francs by September 24, 2025. The I Public Law Division of the Federal Court examined whether it could address the complaint and the criticism raised therein.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2C_507/2025: Decision on the revocation of the EU/EFTA residence permit
Summary of the Facts
The Serbian national A.A.________ received a residence permit based on family reunification with his then German wife. The marriage was divorced in 2024, after which both his residence permit and that of his son B.A.________ were revoked. The legal remedies at the lower court level were unsuccessful, and the complainants approached the Federal Court to request the extension or issuance of new residence permits.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_376/2025: Assessment of the tax valuation of unlisted company shares
Summary of the Facts
A.________, fully taxable in the Canton of Geneva, contests the valuation of the shares he holds in a non-listed company for wealth tax (ICC) for the tax period 2017. The tax administration valued the shares based on a method from Circular No. 28, resulting in an assessment of CHF 1,208,000. A.________ demands a reduction to CHF 194,447 by excluding dividends from qualified holdings in the calculation. - A.________ holds all shares of B.________ SA and is its sole authorized signatory. - The tax administration assessed the shares according to the so-called "Practitioner Method," which uses a weighted average calculation (value of substance and yield). The complainant contested this estimation. - The previous court instances (TAPI and the Cour de justice) confirmed the method of the tax administration.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_722/2024: Decision on free legal aid in disability insurance proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The complainant did not receive a disability pension from the IV Office of Lucerne. She applied to the Cantonal Court of Lucerne for free legal aid and representation, which the court denied due to the hopelessness of the proceedings. She filed a complaint against this decision with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_416/2025: Inadmissibility of a complaint in the area of unemployment insurance
Summary of the Facts
The insured left Switzerland on September 14, 2022, and was unable to prove a habitual residence between that date and January 31, 2023. He also violated his cooperation obligations, which constitutes deceitful behavior or at least gross negligence, thus failing to meet the requirement of good faith for a waiver of reimbursement.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_489/2025: Ruling on the challenge of an interim decision in a criminal matter
Summary of the Facts
The first proceedings against A.________ for violations of the Road Traffic Act were dismissed by the Regional Court of Bern-Mittelland for formal reasons, as the indictment did not sufficiently specify the dates of the offenses. However, the Cantonal Court of Bern overturned this dismissal decision and referred the case back to the first instance. A.________ filed a complaint in criminal matters with the Federal Court and requested the reinstatement of the dismissal decision as well as the determination of the official compensations.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_424/2025: Inadmissibility of the complaint regarding the tax period 2021 in the Canton of Lucerne
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was required by the tax office of the municipality of U.________ to refund an incorrectly paid amount of CHF 2,400,000 for the tax period 2021. The tax office seized assets in a security order. A.________ then filed several submissions. The Cantonal Court of Lucerne did not consider the complaint by decision of June 30, 2025, as the complainant did not sufficiently affirm his intention to complain. He then approached the Federal Court and requested, among other things, restoration of the deadline and suspensive effect.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_388/2025: Non-admittance of a recusal request
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a recusal request against the President of the District Court of Lenzburg, Daniel Aeschbach, with the Cantonal Court of Aargau. The Cantonal Court did not admit the request by decision of April 2, 2025. The complainant then filed a complaint in criminal matters with the Federal Court and requested the annulment of the previous decision and a new assessment by the lower court or the determination of the recusal of Daniel Aeschbach.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_189/2025: Decision on the rejection of a conditional release
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a Chilean citizen, was sentenced by the District Court of Ostwaadt to a prison sentence of 4 years and expulsion for 5 years for various offenses (including endangerment of life, bodily harm, and violation of the narcotics law). He applied for a conditional release from custody. Various expert reports indicated a high risk of recidivism and insufficient progress, particularly as A.________ refused psychotherapy sessions. The cantonal authorities rejected his application, which he escalated to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_239/2025: Decision on discretionary assessment for state and municipal taxes as well as direct federal tax
Summary of the Facts
A.A.________ and B.A.________ were subjected to discretionary assessment by the Cantonal Tax Office of Zurich due to a late submission of their tax return for 2016 and incomplete information regarding their asset situation. The point of contention was the assessment of the purchase price of registered shares in C.________ AG, where the official wealth tax value of CHF 64,500 per share was used. The taxpayers had reported the purchase price significantly lower but could not provide plausible evidence.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.