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_768/2025: Inadmissibility in a Debt Enforcement Matter
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ AG was subject to debt enforcement by the Swiss Confederation for a loss certificate claim. The definitive legal opening was granted by the Cantonal Court of Zug. The board member B.________ filed an appeal in his own name against this decision, which was dismissed by the Zug High Court due to inadmissibility. Following the delivery of a bankruptcy warning, the appellant filed an appeal, which was rejected by the High Court. Before the Federal Court, it requested the annulment of the cost order of CHF 500.-- and raised further objections, including the invalidity of the bankruptcy warning and allegations against the legal actions of the authorities.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Court states that only the judgment of the High Court dated August 21, 2025 is subject to the proceedings. The objections raised against earlier decisions and the validity of the legal opening are not addressed, as these represent inadmissible procedural matters. The reasons for the appeal provided by the appellant are insufficient, as they do not show a targeted engagement with the contested decision and lack legally valid arguments. Before the High Court, objections were raised regarding the jurisdiction of the debt enforcement office, as well as regarding the facsimile signature and the legal objection. These were dismissed, with the court indicating that the supervisory authority was not competent for further requests. Before the Federal Court, the appellant raised new objections such as the dispute over the claim, allegations of bias against the Cantonal Court, and the validity of facsimile stamps. These arguments are either inadmissible or not sufficiently justified. General allegations against the authorities are not considered. Due to obvious inadmissibility and lack of justification, the Federal Court does not consider the appeal according to Art. 108 para. 1 lit. a and b BGG.
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The appeal is not accepted and a cost order of CHF 1,000.-- is imposed.
8C_503/2025: Judgment on the Appeal Against a Remand Decision in the Area of Accident Insurance
Summary of the Facts
The appellant contested the judgment of the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft, which overturned a decision by SWICA Insurance AG and remanded the case for a new decision. The Federal Court had to examine whether an independent appeal against this remand decision is possible.
Summary of the Considerations
The cantonal judgment, which provides for a remand, is an independent interim decision according to Art. 93 BGG and justifies an appeal only under certain conditions. Independent appealability according to Art. 93 para. 1 BGG requires either a non-remediable disadvantage (lit. a) or an immediate production of a final decision through the acceptance of the appeal (lit. b). The appellant relied on lit. b. The Federal Court denied that a significant effort for an extensive evidence procedure would be saved by accepting the appeal, as this was neither substantiated nor given in accordance with case law. The appeal was deemed obviously inadmissible and insufficiently justified, and it was noted that there would be no consideration of the legal remedy according to Art. 108 para. 1 lit. a and b BGG.
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The appeal was not considered, and the costs were imposed on the appellant.
9C_458/2025: Inadmissibility of the Appeal Regarding Occupational Pension
Summary of the Facts
The AXA Foundation for Occupational Pension mistakenly paid a portability benefit of CHF 56,137.90 to A.________ twice. The Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich ordered A.________ to repay this amount plus interest. It stated that neither good faith nor an exceptional hardship existed, so that the obligation to repay according to Art. 35a BVG was applicable. In the appeal filed with the Federal Court, A.________ did not provide sufficient justification against the judgment of the previous instance.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The judgment of the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich is legally well-founded. A.________ did not submit a valid appeal. The requirements according to Art. 42 para. 2 BGG were not met. - **E.2:** It is not sufficient to merely present appellate criticism or financial distress without substantively engaging with the previous decision. - **E.3:** Due to the lack of a valid appeal justification, the appeal is not admitted, and court costs will not be incurred.
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The appeal was declared inadmissible and no court costs were incurred.
7B_715/2025: Inadmissibility of the Appeal Regarding Denial of Justice in Defamation
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted in March 2024 by a penalty order for defamation against B.________ and was fined and penalized. After filing an objection, the Public Prosecutor's Office of Graubünden opened a criminal investigation and conducted interrogations. A.________ then filed a "supervisory complaint" with the High Court of the Canton of Graubünden. The High Court dismissed the complaint to the extent that it considered it. A.________ appealed this decision in criminal matters to the Federal Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
8F_7/2025: Judgment Regarding a Request for Revision in the Area of Disability Insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________ received a temporary disability pension until October 2022, which was confirmed by the Insurance Court of the Canton of Aargau and later by the Federal Court. With a request for revision, he demands a new decision from the Federal Court due to new evidence.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.