Latest Judgments of the Federal Court
Here you will find the latest 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 on the portal of Lexplorer. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest judgments tailored to your legal fields.
7B_1137/2025: Decision on a non-initiation order and rejection
Summary of Facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office of Limmattal/Albis decided on April 17, 2025, not to initiate a criminal investigation regarding data damage against unknown perpetrators. A complaint filed by A.A.________ was dismissed by the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich on September 17, 2025, due to unpaid court costs. A.A.________ then filed a complaint in criminal matters with the Federal Court.
Summary of Considerations
E.1: The complaint to the Federal Court must according to Art. 42 para. 1 and para. 2 BGG contain a request and a detailed justification that demonstrates the violation of federal law. Qualified requirements apply for the complaint of violations of fundamental rights (Art. 106 para. 2 BGG). Insufficiently justified complaints lead to a rejection of the appeal (see, among others, BGE 147 IV 73 E. 4.1.2). E.3.1: The lower court ordered the complainant to provide a court deposit of CHF 1,800.-- in accordance with Art. 383 StPO. This was not paid within the set deadline despite proper delivery of the order, and neither a request for legal aid was submitted nor the possible requirements addressed. E.3.2: The complainant criticizes the court deposit as a violation of access to justice, but does not explain in what way the lower court's order is erroneous. The complaint evidently does not meet the Federal Court's justification requirements. E.4: The complaint is obviously without merit. Therefore, the Federal Court rejects the request for legal aid (Art. 64 para. 1 BGG) and imposes reduced court costs of CHF 500.-- (Art. 66 para. 1 BGG).
Summary of Dispositive
The Federal Court did not enter into the appeal, rejected the request for legal aid, and imposed court costs of CHF 500.--.
2C_660/2023: Neutrality of Education and Organization of Debates in the School Environment
Summary of Facts
The dispute concerns the "Directive d'application DGEO/DGEP sur les débats" (Directive on Debates in the School Environment) of the Canton of Vaud, which addresses political neutrality in teaching and the prohibition of election campaign debates in schools. A.________ and 56 other complainants requested the repeal of the directive and filed a complaint with the Federal Court after the lower court (the Constitutional Court of the Canton of Vaud) declared their complaint inadmissible. The directive is not an appealable regulation within the meaning of cantonal law, as it was not published in the Feuille des avis officiels and merely constitutes an internal administrative instruction.
Summary of Considerations
The Federal Court examines its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the complaint ex officio. According to Art. 82 lit. b BGG, abstract legal protection against normative acts is generally possible, but not against internal administrative instructions, unless they have external effects and cannot be challenged indirectly through individual decisions. The directive prohibits the conduct of election campaign debates in schools during the ten weeks before an election. The aim of the directive is to ensure neutrality in teaching. The complainants allege a violation of federal and constitutional law, particularly the guarantee of access to court. However, this guarantee does not establish a right to cantonal norm control. The design of the abstract norm control procedure is the responsibility of the cantons, and the provisions of the LTF are subsidiary. The directive is an internal administrative instruction since it is intended solely for school administrations and is based on the interpretation of existing statutory provisions. External effects of the directive arise from the cancellation of already organized election campaign debates, which represents an indirect influence on the legal position of the students. Nevertheless, such effects can be challenged within the framework of a concrete decision. The admissibility of direct abstract norm control before the Federal Court was linked to the question of whether effective individual legal protection exists. Since it is reasonable to challenge decisions based on the directive directly, there is no direct access to the Federal Court.
Summary of Dispositive
The complaint was dismissed, and the court costs were imposed on the complainants. No party compensation was awarded.
1C_502/2025: Decision on a Building Permit Outside the Construction Zone
Summary of Facts
The complainant A.________ submitted a subsequent building permit for an extended and renovated building in the agricultural zone as well as for external structures (pergola, grill, pavements, etc.), which he had partially executed himself. The competent authorities rejected the building permit as the constructions are not in accordance with zoning regulations. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Ticino confirmed this decision.
Summary of Considerations
- **E.1:** The complaint in public law matters is admissible as it concerns a final decision of the cantonal instance and the requirements for standing are fulfilled despite the sale of the properties. - **E.2:** The Federal Court examines the application of federal law ex officio with limited authority to review the factual findings of the cantonal courts (Art. 97 and 105 BGG). - **E.3:** The complaint regarding the violation of the right to be heard is dismissed. The Administrative Court could lawfully reject the evidence requests due to lack of relevance and adequately assess the situation based on the available files. - **E.4:** The complainant's request to apply the new Federal Act on Spatial Planning (revised RPG, Art. 25 para. 5 RPG) to the issue of the limitation period for violations is also dismissed, as the revision is not yet in force and is not relevant in the present procedure. A prerequisite for a subsequent permit remains zoning conformity, which is not present. - **E.5:** The violation of the principle of "good faith" is rejected. The complainant could not convincingly demonstrate that the behavior of the authorities created a legitimate expectation in the legality of the constructions. Mere inaction of the municipality is not sufficient to legitimize the construction work.
Summary of Dispositive
The complaint was dismissed because the subsequent building permit and the claim to good faith were not successful. The costs are imposed on the complainant.
5F_74/2025: Decision on Revision Request
Summary of Facts
The applicant A.A.________ requested a revision of the Federal Court decision of September 8, 2025 (5A_169/2025). This decision concerned the referral decision of the Federal Court in a divorce case involving A.A.________ and B.A.________.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_692/2024: Dismissal of the Refund Request of A.________ SA
Summary of Facts
A.________ SA demanded a refund of CHF 4,384,439 from the Department of Health and Social Affairs of the Canton of Vaud, which it allegedly paid unjustifiably from 2016 to 2020 due to unlawful cantonal hospital planning. After dismissal by the Department and the cantonal court, the Federal Court rejected A.________'s complaint.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1052/2025: Dismissal of the Complaint Against the Decision on Provisional Measures
Summary of Facts
This case concerns a criminal complaint filed in 2018 regarding the suspicion of bribing foreign officials, money laundering, and data theft. During the subsequent proceedings, the complainants filed additional criminal complaints against parties involved in the original proceedings. This second case (P_2) was suspended by the Ministry of the Canton of Geneva pending the outcome of the first investigation (P_1). The complainants requested measures to secure various accounts and documentation as well as other provisional measures. The president of the cantonal appeal instance rejected the ordering of these measures. The complainants are appealing against this decision.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_667/2025: Admissibility of a Complaint Regarding the Revocation of Simplified Naturalization
Summary of Facts
A.________, a Guinean citizen, applied for simplified naturalization after marrying a Swiss citizen in 2012, which was granted to him in 2017. Following a later separation and divorce, the State Secretariat for Migration initiated a procedure to revoke the naturalization, which resulted in a decision on March 30, 2023, that the naturalization was revoked due to deception. The Federal Administrative Court rejected the complaint against this decision on October 8, 2025. A.________ then filed a complaint with the Federal Court on November 8, 2025.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.