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 dispositives. For the further judgments, you will find a summary of the facts. The complete summaries of all judgments are available in the portal of Lexplorer. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest judgments tailored to your areas of law.
7B_709/2025: Judgment on the Recusal of an Interpreter in a Criminal Procedure
Summary of the Facts
A.________, against whom a criminal investigation for serious offenses is pending, requested the recusal of the interpreter B.________ due to bias during an interrogation. The public prosecutor referred the request to the High Court of the Canton of Schaffhausen, which dismissed the recusal request and imposed the procedural costs on A.________. A.________ appealed this decision to the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
The appeal can generally be entertained since a standalone interim decision is being challenged. The general procedures of the public prosecutor or alleged violations of rights, for which there is no sufficient objection, are not subject to the proceedings. The recusal rules applicable to interpreters (Art. 56 StPO) require circumstances that objectively create an appearance of bias. Such circumstances have not been credibly established. The lower court correctly found that the allegation of informal agreements between the interpreter and the public prosecutor was not sufficiently substantiated. Difficulties in translation are also not enough to call into question the impartiality of the interpreter. The recusal request is unfounded. Due to the hopelessness of the appeal, the request for free legal aid is denied. However, the court grants a reduction of the court costs.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal and the request for free legal aid are dismissed. A.________ must bear the court costs.
5A_848/2025: Decision on the Suspensive Effect in Connection with a Garnishment Certificate
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed an appeal against a garnishment certificate issued by the Regional Debt Collection Office. She repeatedly requested the suspensive effect. Both the District Court of Kulm and the High Court of the Canton of Aargau dismissed the related requests. Against the final decision of the High Court, she appealed to the Federal Court, again submitting requests for the suspensive effect.
Summary of the Considerations
**E.1**: The subject of the proceedings before the Federal Court is solely the suspensive effect, not the garnishment or the calculation of the subsistence minimum. The appellant raises constitutional objections without addressing the legal considerations of the lower court, particularly regarding the prohibition of new evidence and the inadmissibility of certain documents. Her objections are inadmissible and inadequately substantiated. **E.2**: Orders regarding the suspensive effect are precautionary measures as per Art. 98 BGG. Therefore, only violations of constitutional rights can be objected to, which the appellant does not sufficiently demonstrate. **E.3**: The appeal is deemed obviously inadmissible, and it will not be considered in the simplified procedure. The renewed request for suspensive effect thus becomes moot. **E.4**: Since the appeal was hopeless from the outset, the request for free legal aid and representation is dismissed. The court costs are to be borne by the appellant.
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Court does not entertain the appeal, dismisses the request for free legal aid, and imposes court costs.
6B_730/2025: Decision Regarding the Formal Inadmissibility of an Appeal
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ SA appealed against a decision of the Cantonal Court of Valais, which confirmed a fine of CHF 10,000 for violating a construction stop according to Art. 61 para. 3 of the Cantonal Building Act (LC/VS). The construction stop was issued on February 29, 2024, due to unapproved construction work. The appellant argued that the work should be classified as regular maintenance and not subject to approval. She also objected to a violation of fundamental rights, particularly the principle of arbitrariness and the right to be heard, as well as a disregard for the principle of good faith.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The subject of the appeal is limited to the imposition of the fine, not the legality of the construction stop. The basis for the sanction falls under criminal law according to Art. 78 para. 1 BGG. - **E.3:** The appeal does not meet the requirements of substantiation according to Art. 42 para. 2 BGG, as no clear and detailed arguments are presented. - **E.5:** The alleged assurances from the municipality are not part of the cantonal decision and are thus irrelevant. - **E.6:** It has been established that the cantonal authority did not violate the right to be heard, as the relevant arguments were examined. - **E.7-E.8:** The immediate enforceability of the construction stop and the distinction between its legality and the sanction were correctly applied. - **E.11:** Any possible legal remedy against the construction stop itself does not affect the immediate enforceability and the resulting punishment. - **E.13:** The appellant has neither sufficiently nor concretely articulated her arguments, particularly regarding the freedom of business and the proportionality of the penalty.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal is declared inadmissible, and the costs are imposed on the appellant.