Latest Judgments of the Federal Court

Summary of the Facts

A.________ was expelled from the Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering and Information Technology program at Lucerne University because he failed the mandatory module "MATH1B." He appealed this decision and requested to continue his studies during this procedure, which was denied. Furthermore, A.________ claimed delay of rights and refusal of rights. After rejecting the appeal, the Department of Education and Culture of the Canton of Lucerne declared the rights delay procedure completed. The Cantonal Court of Lucerne confirmed this view.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ unsuccessfully requested the restoration of a deadline after he failed to make a prepayment on time. His appeal against the negative ruling of the Criminal Chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court was forwarded to the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The appellant, a taxpayer from the Canton of Vaud, filed a request to disqualify Judge Mihaela Amoos Piguet, who was tasked with assessing tax issues in an ongoing procedure. He justified this with doubts about her impartiality due to previous cases in which she was involved. The Vaud Cantonal Court rejected the request, against which the appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The appellant requested an appeal against the ruling of the Cantonal Court of Zurich dated June 13, 2025. The Federal Court set a deadline for the payment of the cost advance, which was not paid. A further deadline was also not complied with. The appeal also did not meet the formal requirements of the Federal Court Act (Art. 42 para. 2 and Art. 106 para. 2 BGG).

Summary of the Facts

The association A.________ was registered in the commercial register of the Canton of Zurich and aimed to promote exchanges between Bolivian and Swiss citizens as well as activities from Bolivia and Latin America. Due to unresolved organizational deficiencies and missing valid domicile information, the District Court of Zurich ordered the dissolution and liquidation of the association. The Cantonal Court rejected the appeal against this ruling, prompting the association to file a complaint with the Federal Court and make various legal requests.

Summary of the Facts

The applicant submitted a request for revision against a judgment of the Federal Court dated June 24, 2025 (4F_11/2025), which the court had already not admitted. The new request for revision criticizes the previous judgment for alleged procedural deficiencies and violations of fundamental rights, without specifying any of the legally provided grounds for revision according to Art. 121–123 BGG.

Summary of the Facts

The applicant A.________ requested the Federal Court to revise a previous judgment (4D_119/2025 from August 7, 2025), in which his appeal was not admitted. The revision was requested invoking revision grounds according to Art. 121-123 BGG.

Summary of the Facts

B.________ AG received a building permit for a raised photovoltaic system on the flat roof of a staff building in the municipality of St. Moritz. A.________, a neighbor on a plot approximately 70 m away, filed an objection due to impairment of the view and violation of local landscape design. After both the municipality and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Graubünden rejected the complaint, A.________ appealed to the Federal Court, requesting the annulment of the building permit.

Summary of the Facts

The A.________ SA requested the disqualification of a judge of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Vaud due to alleged bias. The judge was involved in several proceedings concerning tax matters related to the company and its main shareholder and board member. The cantonal court rejected the disqualification request, which was ultimately reviewed by the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The appellant, a woman from Vietnam, had lived in Switzerland since 1995, initially with a residence permit as a student. After marrying a Swiss citizen in 2005, she received a residence permit that was extended until 2020. In 2020, she returned to Vietnam without deregistering. In 2023, she applied for an entry permit for family reunification, although she lives separately from her husband. The Migration Office, the Security Directorate, and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich denied the permit, as there was no entitlement to family reunification.

Summary of the Facts

The appellant was convicted by two penal orders of the Regional Public Prosecutor's Office of Berner Jura-Seeland for theft (minor value). After the appeal, the procedures were consolidated by the Regional Court of Berner Jura-Seeland, but due to unexcused absence from the properly scheduled main hearing, the appeals are deemed withdrawn according to Art. 356 para. 4 StPO. A request for restoration was denied by both the Regional Court and the Cantonal Court of Bern, after which the appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ was convicted by a penal order from the Public Prosecutor's Office of Baden for driving a vehicle with a cargo transport trailer on February 12, 2021, from which ice chunks fell off the tarpaulin and onto the roadway. This led to damage to a following vehicle. The District Court of Baden and the Cantonal Court of Aargau confirmed the conviction according to Art. 93 para. 2 lit. a SVG. A.________ requested his acquittal from the Federal Court and alternatively the referral back to the lower court.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court on 29.08.2025, requesting the determination of a refusal of rights accusation as well as the absolute nullity of the criminal proceedings CP/21/2024. He demanded the cessation of any criminal prosecution, the establishment of legal violations by Jura authorities, the repeal of measures by B.________, and compensation for suffered disadvantages. The lower court rejected the appeal due to insufficient reasoning.

Summary of the Facts

The applicant (A.________) is represented by B.________, who is not authorized to represent according to Art. 40 para. 1 BGG. A request for revision filed against a previous judgment of the Federal Court from February 4, 2025, is being addressed. Previously, both the original appeal and another request for revision had not been admitted.

Summary of the Facts

The appellants appealed against a decision of the police judge of the Broye district, in which their civil claim was referred to the civil courts. The Cantonal Court of Fribourg repeatedly requested them to pay a security deposit for the civil part of the appeal, but to no avail. The request for free legal assistance was denied. The Cantonal Court ultimately did not admit the civil part of the appeal. In their appeal to the Federal Court, the appellants requested exemption from the security deposit and the granting of free legal assistance.

Summary of the Facts

The appellant submitted a request for free legal assistance on July 10, 2025, which the District Court of St. Gallen rejected due to the hopelessness of the modification action. The subsequently filed appeal before the Cantonal Court of St. Gallen was not addressed due to insufficient reasoning. The appellant approached the Federal Court with a submission described as "an objection" and requested a new calculation of child support as well as consideration of his financial situation.

Summary of the Facts

A supplementary judge of the District Court of Lugano ordered on June 25, 2025, that CHF 1,180 be deducted monthly from the income of the appellant (A.________) for maintenance payments for the common children to the respondent (B.________). The family law calculation included the appellant's subsistence minimum, but not that of his new partner and her child, with whom he lives. The I. Civil Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Ticino dismissed the appeal against this decision.

Summary of the Facts

The appellant, A.________, filed an appeal against a judgment of the Cour d'appel pénale des Tribunal cantonal du canton de Vaud dated December 4, 2024. This judgment found him guilty of, among other things, violating a maintenance obligation and sentenced him to 37 months of imprisonment. The appeal requested a reduction of the sentence and a partial suspension. However, the appellant did not pay the required cost advance within the specified period, and his reasoning did not meet the legal requirements.

Summary of the Facts

- Subject: - Procedure 6B_382/2025: Dispute over the compensation of the official defender (lawyer Andrea Taormina). - Procedure 6B_383/2025: Conviction of A.________ for incitement to murder. - Background: - A.________ was charged and convicted of several offenses by the District Court of Zurich (2020). He was acquitted of the charge of attempted coercion and other offenses. - The Cantonal Court of Zurich partially overturned the first-instance judgments and found A.________ guilty of murder. Subsequently, the judgment was partially referred back to the Cantonal Court. - In the renewed Cantonal Court judgment (2024), A.________ was found guilty of incitement to murder.

Summary of the Facts