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 dispositions. For the further judgments, you will find a summary of the facts. The complete summaries of all judgments are available on the Lexplorer portal. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest judgments tailored to your areas of law.
2C_153/2025: Judgment on the non-extension of a residence permit due to suspicion of sham marriage
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a Chinese national, repeatedly applied for an extension of her residence permit, which was based on her marriage to a Swiss citizen. The Migration Office of the Canton of St. Gallen refused the extension due to suspicion of a sham marriage. The suspicion was particularly based on the lack of actual cohabitation and contradictory and implausible statements by the spouses. The appeals to the cantonal authorities were unsuccessful.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Court examines the formal requirements and finds that it is a permissible complaint in public law matters, as a claim for residence permit is asserted. The claim is based on Art. 42 para. 1 AIG. Legal deficiencies and violations of federal or international law can be raised. The Federal Court bases its judgment on the facts established by the lower court (Art. 105 para. 1 BGG). Examination of the claims for a fair trial and legal hearing (Art. 29 para. 1 and para. 2 BV). The lower court rightly considered the statements from May 17, 2019, and the actions of the Migration Office as admissible. Although the duration of the proceedings was excessively long, no violation of the right to be heard is apparent. The Federal Court confirms the assessment of the lower court that numerous indications of a sham marriage exist. These include, among others, the lack of a common household, contradictory statements by the spouses, superficial knowledge about the partner's living circumstances, and limited communication skills. The assessment of evidence by the lower court is not obviously incorrect or arbitrary. The non-extension of the residence permit is not legally disproportionate, as the requirements according to Art. 42 para. 1 AIG are not fulfilled due to the suspicion of a sham marriage.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint was dismissed, the court costs were imposed on the complainant, and no party compensation was awarded.
8C_583/2025: Judgment regarding disability insurance (disability pension)
Summary of the Facts
A.________, who was born in 1972, had an accident on September 26, 2000, and received a full disability pension starting in September 2001. This pension was revoked in a review procedure at the end of October 2013. After multiple unsuccessful reapplications, A.________ applied again for benefits from the disability insurance office of the Canton of Aargau on February 11, 2022. Ultimately, the disability insurance office denied a pension claim with a decision dated December 9, 2024, as no relevant disability existed. The complaint filed against this decision was dismissed by the insurance court of the Canton of Aargau on August 18, 2025.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1**: The Federal Court examines legal violations under Art. 95 et seq. BGG and applies the law ex officio (Art. 106 para. 1 BGG). It bases its findings on the facts as established by the lower court and can correct these findings if they are obviously incorrect (Art. 97 para. 1 and Art. 105 para. 2 BGG). - **E.2**: The subject of the proceedings is the review of the lower court, which confirmed the decision of the disability insurance office. The question at issue was whether the complainant had a claim to a pension. - **E.3**: The lower court correctly applied the relevant legal bases. - **E.4**: - **E.4.1**: The lower court regarded the medaffairs expertise from August 9, 2024, as fully admissible and found that a 100% working capacity of the insured in an adapted occupation has existed since September 2016. Temporary incapacities to work during certain periods did not lead to a pension entitlement due to the reapplication in February 2022. - **E.4.2**: - **E.4.2.1**: The complainant objected in an appellate manner to the assessment of evidence by the lower court, without considering the strict complaint principle. - **E.4.2.2**: The statements in the orthopedic expert opinion were assessed correctly and completely, which is why the complainant's objection is unfounded. - **E.4.2.3**: The psychiatric assessment was assessed validly both in the expert opinion and by the lower court. The complainant does not show any legal violations in the assessment. - **E.4.2.4**: Indications of aggravation or simulation were considered. The lower court established this without arbitrariness. - **E.4.3**: The complaint is obviously unfounded and is dealt with in a simplified procedure according to Art. 109 BGG. - **E.5**: The court costs are imposed on the losing complainant.
Summary of the Disposition
The complainant's appeal was dismissed, and the court costs were imposed on him.
8C_720/2024: Decision on insurance coverage and causality in accident insurance
Summary of the Facts
The insured (born 1966) had an accident on November 17, 2014, during professional activity, resulting in a meniscus injury to the right knee. Several follow-up surgeries and complications affected both knees. The Swiss Accident Insurance Institute (SUVA) discontinued its benefits from August 4, 2015, and recognized a chondrocalcinosis-related degeneration as the cause of the complaints. The insured repeatedly challenged SUVA's decisions, most recently before the Geneva Cantonal Insurance Chamber, and requested the Federal Court to take over further costs and benefits.
Summary of the Considerations
E.1: The appellant has fulfilled all formal requirements for submitting the complaint procedure. The complaint is admissible. E.2.1: The claims of the complainant regarding dental treatment costs and further medical services beyond the benefit limit set by SUVA were specified and partially excluded. Only the treatment costs resulting from the accident on March 16, 2017, were permitted. E.2.2: New facts or evidence in the procedure according to Art. 99 para. 1 BGG were not taken into account. E.3: The court examined the legal bases from Art. 6 para. 1 and para. 2 UVG as well as the case law regarding causes and causality, as they are relevant for the accident and the diseases of the insured. E.5: The insured saw a violation of his right to be heard due to insufficient justification of the cantonal judgment. The Federal Court rejected this accusation and stated that the cantonal authority adequately justified its decisions and dealt extensively with the arguments of the insured. E.6: The Federal Court confirmed the complete evidentiary power of the SUVA expertise of Dr. B., who classified the complaints of the complainant as explainable by chondrocalcinosis-related degeneration. Furthermore, additional medical opinions were consistent with this view. E.7: Ultimately, the Federal Court fully rejected the complaint on the merits.
Summary of the Disposition
The complainant's appeal was rejected on the merits, and the court costs were imposed on him.
4D_227/2025: Tenant eviction: Appeal against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Aargau
Summary of the Facts
The appeal concerns the eviction of a tenant from an apartment due to termination of the tenancy. The complainant contested the decisions of the District Court of Baden and the Cantonal Court of Aargau, which ordered the termination of the tenancy as well as the eviction of the rental property. The Federal Court examined the submission of the complainant but classified it as a subsidiary constitutional complaint and did not admit it, as the legal requirements were not fulfilled.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_331/2025: Traffic rule violation and applicability of the administrative fine procedure
Summary of the Facts
The complainant overtook several vehicles on the hard shoulder of the A3 motorway on March 7, 2023, during stop-and-go traffic to reach the Urdorf-Nord exit. The District Court of Dietikon acquitted him in the first instance of the charge of violating the prohibition of right overtaking, but the Zurich Court of Appeal convicted him in the second instance among other things to pay a fine of CHF 350.--. The complainant is seeking acquittal from the Federal Court regarding the right overtaking and the application of an administrative fine for driving on the hard shoulder.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_527/2025: Withdrawal of the appeal before the Federal Court in civil proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The proceedings concern a civil dispute between A.________ as the complainant and B.________ AG as the respondent. The appeal was filed by A.________ against a decision of the Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva dated September 16, 2025. On November 7, 2025, the legal representative of the complainant informed the Federal Court that the appeal would be withdrawn.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1183/2025: Extension of pretrial detention due to suspicion and possible collusion risk
Summary of the Facts
A.A.________, a Swiss citizen, was arrested on suspicion of involvement in an organized network for drug trafficking and money laundering according to Art. 19 para. 1 and 2 BetmG and Art. 305bis StGB. The network operated in the W.________ canton and the western region of Switzerland, generating significant income, including from the sale of cocaine. Various pieces of evidence were found during the arrest, including drugs, cash, and luxury goods. A.A.________ denies any involvement in criminal activities.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_555/2025: Inadmissibility of the appeal regarding compensation for damages and free legal assistance
Summary of the Facts
The complainant sought compensation for damages and requested free legal assistance. The District Court of Winterthur did not admit her claim for damages or the request for free legal assistance. The Cantonal Court of Zurich also did not admit the complainant's appeal against the district court decision due to insufficient justification. On October 31, 2025, the complainant filed an appeal with the Federal Court against the cantonal court decision.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_658/2025: Assessment of the revocation of child protection measures and guardianship
Summary of the Facts
The parents A.________ and B.________ are in dispute over child protection measures and guardianship regarding their two children, in particular concerning the revocation of a supervisory guardianship. After multiple placements of the children and established protective measures by the KESB, the KESB Leimental ultimately agreed to the revocation of the guardianship and child protection measures. The mother had meanwhile been granted sole custody of the children. The father wished to maintain the guardianship, which the cantonal lower court rejected by dismissing the appeal.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_676/2025: Inadmissibility of the appeal against the decision of the Geneva Public Prosecutor
Summary of the Facts
A.________ Ltd and B.________ filed an appeal with the Federal Criminal Court, Appeals Chamber, against a decision of the Geneva Public Prosecutor dated September 22, 2025, which refused the release of seized bank assets. The appeal was declared inadmissible as the submitted evidence did not prove the existence of the company and the representation authority of its director. A judicial complaint dated November 3, 2025, supplemented with new evidence, was submitted to the Federal Court for decision.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4D_184/2025: Resolution regarding the withdrawal of an appeal
Summary of the Facts
A.________ SA filed an appeal on September 23, 2025, against the decision of the Civil Chamber of the Geneva Cantonal Court dated August 29, 2025. The party was requested to pay a court cost advance of CHF 800 by October 27, 2025. After a further non-extendable deadline until November 14, 2025, no payment was made. On November 17, 2025, A.________ SA declared the withdrawal of its appeal.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_505/2025: Loan and inadmissibility of the appeal
Summary of the Facts
In the dispute between A.________ (complainant) and B.________ (respondent), it concerned the repayment of a loan. In the first instance, the District Court of Zurich awarded the respondent CHF 40,000.-- but dismissed the claim regarding other amounts. The Cantonal Court of Zurich confirmed this decision and dismissed the complainant's appeal as far as it was admitted. The complainant subsequently filed an appeal with the Federal Court, including a request for free legal assistance.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_861/2024: Judgment on multiple fraud and fraudulent deception
Summary of the Facts
A woman born in 1990 (A.________) was convicted of multiple property crimes and inducing the judiciary into error. She unlawfully received pensions and social benefits by providing false information about her marital status, living conditions, and other relevant circumstances. Additionally, she fabricated a car break-in to obtain insurance money.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_673/2025: Inadmissibility of an appeal regarding the extension of administrative detention in view of deportation
Summary of the Facts
The Moroccan citizen A.________, born in 1990, was expelled from Switzerland for five years by the Cantonal Court for Appeals and Revision of Geneva on August 15, 2022. On December 18, 2024, the police commissioner of the Canton of Geneva initially ordered a three-month administrative detention, which was extended multiple times, lastly by the judgment of the Administrative Court of the first instance of the Canton of Geneva on November 12, 2025, with a detention period until January 16, 2026.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4D_217/2025: Decision of the Federal Court on the withdrawal of an appeal in labor law matters
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed an appeal on October 31, 2025, against a decision of the Civil Court of Appeals of the Cantonal Court of Vaud dated August 21, 2025. The appeal concerned a labor law dispute between A.________ and B.________. On November 14, 2025 (date of the postmark), A.________ informed the Federal Court in writing that she was withdrawing her appeal.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_243/2025: Judgment regarding the designation of the water area at Tankgraben
Summary of the Facts
The appeal against the overall revision of the land use planning Glarus North concerns the waiver of the designation of a water area at Tankgraben. After the DBU of the Canton of Glarus confirmed the waiver, the President of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Glarus did not admit the appeal, referring to res iudicata. Nature conservation organizations appealed against this decision to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4D_157/2025: Inadmissibility of the appeal due to lack of advance payment
Summary of the Facts
A debtor contested a definitive legal opening regarding CHF 112.– concerning a payment order obtained by the creditor. The single judge of the District Court of Monthey granted the definitive legal opening, which was confirmed by the Civil Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Valais on August 4, 2025. The complainant filed an appeal against this judgment with the Federal Court on August 28, 2025.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2F_26/2025: Judgment regarding the revision of a previous judgment on residence permit and deportation
Summary of the Facts
The complainant (A.________) applied for the revision of the Federal Court judgment of September 17, 2025 (2C_425/2025), which confirmed the revocation of his residence permit and his deportation. He stated incorrect assessment of facts and new facts as justification. Specifically, he pointed out that the Federal Court had disregarded material and domestic violence as well as a long-standing marital community.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_1367/2023: Judgment of the Federal Court on the appeal in criminal proceedings
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted on January 19, 2022, by the District Court of the District of Vaud for sexual acts with a child and sentenced to a fine. He received a suspended prison sentence and was banned for life from all professions with regular contact with minors. He was also ordered to make compensation payments to the victim. The appeal against this decision was dismissed on April 28, 2022, by the cantonal appeal authority. After the Federal Court overturned the judgment due to insufficient examination of a complaint point, the case was referred back to the cantonal authority. On October 31, 2023, the cantonal authority again decided on the appeal, dismissed it, and ordered A.________ to pay certain court costs. The accused was born in 1983, has training as a car mechanic, and has no criminal record. He began his work as a technician in 2022. On September 22, 2019, A.________ acted inappropriately in a swimming pool by partially removing his swimsuit and performing sexual acts on himself while an 11-year-old child was nearby. These incidents occurred multiple times over a short period.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_625/2025: Inadmissibility of the appeal regarding authorities' detention to ensure deportation enforcement
Summary of the Facts
In this proceeding, a Tunisian citizen complains against his deportation order and the associated detention to ensure deportation enforcement. The Federal Court finds that the complainant did not submit the contested decision within the time set for him (until November 13, 2025). Since this requirement was not met, the appeal is not admitted.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_416/2024: Judgment on the construction of a mobile phone facility outside the building zone
Summary of the Facts
Swisscom (Schweiz) AG planned to build a mobile phone facility outside the building zone in the Bernese Jura to better supply the municipality of Schelten with mobile phone services. The exception permit according to Art. 24 RPG was granted, which was rejected by several residents. They filed complaints in several instances. Ultimately, they appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1F_18/2025: Judgment regarding the request for revision against a cantonal inadmissibility
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and B.________ requested the revision of a Federal Court judgment confirming the dismissal of two complaints against cantonal inadmissibility decisions. The subject of the original proceedings was the abolishment of a landscape protection zone as well as questions regarding a land and forestry road. The complainants raised violations of various procedural rules and human rights guarantees.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_286/2025: Judgment of the Federal Court on sexual acts with minors
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ was convicted by the District Court of Sierre on April 8, 2024, for sexual acts with minors and sexual coercion. He received a prison sentence of 18 months, which was reduced by the time already served from May 27, 2020, to June 25, 2020. Additionally, he was sentenced to 9 months of probation with a probation period of 3 years. He was also prohibited from engaging in activities with regular contact with minors. In the appeal, the judgment of the District Court was confirmed by the Criminal Court I of the Canton of Valais on February 14, 2025. A.________ argued that his right to be heard was violated as the court rejected his evidence requests. A complaint was filed with the Federal Court, in which A.________ requested his acquittal and the lifting of the measures under Article 67 StGB.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4D_173/2025: Legal opening
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court examined a complaint against the judgment of the Cantonal Court of Zurich, which had dismissed the appeal against the granting of the definitive legal opening by the District Court of Hinwil. The complainant requested the order of installment payment of the cost advance and later free legal assistance but missed the deadlines.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_550/2024: Building permit for outdoor lighting of the Parish Church St. Heinrich in Beckenried
Summary of the Facts
The municipal council of Beckenried granted the Roman Catholic parish of Beckenried a building permit for the planned outdoor lighting of the Parish Church St. Heinrich. The lighting is intended to highlight certain sections of the church and will be deactivated at night between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM. B.________, the former owner of a neighboring parcel, objected to this project and filed a complaint. After the acquisition of this parcel by A.________, he continued the proceedings. The cantonal administrative court dismissed the complaint. A.________ then filed a complaint in public law with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_540/2025: Inadmissibility of the appeal due to lack of justification
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a payment claim against B.________ SA on December 22, 2023, which the Tribunal civil du Littoral et du Val-de-Travers dismissed on June 3, 2025. The Cour d'appel civile des Tribunal cantonal des Cantons Neuchâtel declared A.________'s appeal inadmissible on October 13, 2025, as the appeal submission did not meet the justification requirements according to Art. 311 para. 1 ZPO. On October 28, 2025, A.________ filed a complaint in civil matters with the Federal Court and simultaneously requested free legal assistance.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_297/2025: Non-renewal of a permit for professional animal husbandry
Summary of the Facts
The complainant operated an animal shelter in the Canton of Vaud for decades. After the introduction of a new permit regime in 2014 for professional animal husbandry, she received a one-year permit after a transition period. Numerous deficiencies concerning hygiene, safety, and animal welfare were repeatedly found during unannounced inspections. In 2024, the cantonal veterinary authority refused to renew the permit and ordered the return or placement of the animals. The cantonal judicial authority confirmed this decision.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_641/2025: Inadmissibility of the appeal against compensation regulation in the context of a remittance decision
Summary of the Facts
The local community of Thal appealed against the compensation regulation of a remittance decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen dated September 18, 2025, concerning the special use plan and the building permit for three multi-family houses. The Federal Court examined the admissibility of the appeal, as it concerns an interim decision under Art. 93 BGG.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_492/2025: Judgment on the non-payment of the cost advance in the appeal procedure
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a complaint against the Insurance Court of the Canton of Aargau regarding a refusal of rights or delay in rights concerning an IV procedure. The Federal Court subsequently obliged him to pay a cost advance of CHF 500.- by November 10, 2025. The request for free legal assistance was not granted in the decision dated October 24, 2025. However, the complainant did not make the cost advance within the deadline.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_668/2025: Inadmissibility of the appeal against the refusal of a residence permit
Summary of the Facts
A Tunisian citizen (A.________) received a residence permit for study purposes until January 31, 2024, in 2018. The cantonal security directorate of Bern refused him a residence permit for employment or hardship reasons on September 5, 2025. Against these negative decisions, A.________ requested free legal assistance from the Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern, which was rejected on October 15, 2025. A.________ then filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_699/2025: Non-admission of a complaint regarding an objection to a penalty order
Summary of the Facts
The complainant was convicted by a penalty order from the Regional Public Prosecutor Emmental-Oberaargau on March 24, 2025, for multiple disobedience against official orders. He filed an objection, which was considered withdrawn by the Regional Court Emmental-Oberaargau according to Art. 356 para. 4 StPO, as he did not appear despite proper summons and did not send a representative. The complaint against this decision was dismissed by the Cantonal Court of Bern as far as it was admitted.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2F_27/2025: Rejection of a revision or re-examination request in relation to a decision on legal assistance
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ requested a revision of a Federal Court decision from October 28, 2025, which rejected her request for free legal assistance. She cited a faulty assessment of facts and failure to examine essential legal questions. The complainant had previously unsuccessfully requested the opportunity to retake four failed exams as part of her training for the 'Master of Advanced Studies in Humanitarian Action' at the University of Geneva.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4D_200/2025: Procedural end due to withdrawal in labor law appeal
Summary of the Facts
The complainant filed a labor law appeal against a decision of the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft on October 13, 2025. During the proceedings, he requested free legal assistance but withdrew the appeal on November 5, 2025.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_489/2025: Decision on the granting in relation to a delayed family reunification
Summary of the Facts
The Kosovar national A.________ applied for a residence permit for a subsequent family reunification with his father, who has a settlement permit. His father's original permit dates back to 2018, but A.________ only made an inquiry in 2021, which the Federal Court deemed delayed. Later, A.________ lived in Switzerland since summer 2024 without having a valid permit. He based a new application on his father's settlement permit and on family reasons he asserted, such as supporting his younger brother.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_603/2025: Withdrawal of the appeal and deletion of the case from the procedural register
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ Limited filed a complaint against a judgment of the Cour de justice de la République et canton de Genève, Chambre administrative, concerning cantonal and municipal taxes as well as direct federal tax for the tax periods 2010-2014. However, in a letter dated November 17, 2025, the complainant declared the withdrawal of their complaint.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_428/2025: Decision regarding the procedure on measures concerning professional secrecy
Summary of the Facts
A.________, represented by her curator B.________, filed several complaints with the cantonal commission for the supervision of health professions. She complained, among other things, about violations of professional secrecy by the staff of a Geneva nursing home (EMS). The cantonal supervisory commission rejected the request for measures, and the lower court, the Cour de justice of the Canton of Geneva, dismissed the complaint against this rejection. A.________ then filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_551/2025: Dispute over the execution of a therapeutic measure under Art. 59 StGB
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, A.________, was sentenced in 2020 for various offenses to a prison sentence of 5 years, 5 months, and 10 days, as well as a therapeutic measure under Art. 59 StGB. Subsequently, the prison sentence was suspended, and the measure was initiated in a closed facility. In 2024, he was transferred to an open colony. The complainant objected that the open colony was not a suitable place for the execution of the measure and repeatedly filed complaints. However, the cantonal courts confirmed the decisions of the responsible authorities, leading him ultimately to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_334/2025: Decision on the inadmissibility of the appeal against an examination decision
Summary of the Facts
D.B.________, a student in the 10th primary grade (VP) in the Canton of Vaud, received a grade of 3.0 (originally 5.0, after deduction of two points) in the geography test on March 7, 2024, due to cheating. This decision was confirmed by the school administration and later by the cantonal Department of Education. The parents of D.B.________ filed a complaint, which was dismissed by the Administrative Court of the Canton of Vaud, as there was no current legal interest. The student’s promotion to the next level (11th VP) was not at risk.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_257/2024: Inadmissibility of the appeal in public law matters regarding examination assessments
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ failed the written examination for the notary certificate on April 15, 2023, which involved a written elaboration of several acts and requests. After an oral explanation on June 15, 2023, and a written justification on September 8, 2023, the evaluation was 54 out of 90 points, with 60 points required to pass. The complainant approached the Administrative Court of the Canton of Ticino, which raised his score to 59 points but confirmed the failure of the examination (judgment of April 11, 2024). The complainant then filed a complaint in public law matters and subsidiarily a subsidiary constitutional complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_563/2025: Decision regarding party status as notifier in the proceedings before the Bar Association
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a supervisory complaint against lawyer B.________ with the Bar Association of the Canton of St. Gallen, who had represented him in the family law divorce proceedings. The Bar Association decided not to initiate disciplinary proceedings. A subsequent complaint by A.________ was not further treated by the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen, as he, as the notifier in the proceedings, does not have party status. A.________ then turned to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.