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 dispositions. For the other judgments, you will find a summary of the facts. The full 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.
2C_721/2025: Decision on the inadmissibility of a complaint in asylum law
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, a citizen of the United States of America born in 1968, submitted an asylum application in Switzerland on September 17, 2025. The State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) rejected her application with a decision dated November 3, 2025, and ordered her expulsion from Switzerland. The Federal Administrative Court dismissed an appeal filed against this decision as well as requests for legal aid and official legal representation (judgment of November 28, 2025). The complainant filed an appeal with the Federal Court on December 15, 2025, requesting the annulment of the judgment, reopening of the proceedings, and declaration of various constitutional violations. She also requested legal aid.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The complainant submitted her application in English. English is not an official language (Art. 42 para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 54 para. 1 BGG). Nevertheless, a referral was waived as the outcome of the proceedings did not require additional measures. - **E.3.1:** According to Art. 83 lit. d no. 1 BGG, appeals in public law matters regarding asylum decisions of the Federal Administrative Court are inadmissible, except in specific exceptional cases, which are not present here. - **E.3.2:** The present matter concerns expulsion in connection with an unsuccessful asylum application, thus Art. 83 lit. d no. 1 BGG fully applies. - **E.3.3:** A subsidiary constitutional complaint is also excluded according to Art. 113 BGG. - **E.4:** The president of the department decided in simplified proceedings according to Art. 108 para. 1 lit. a BGG not to enter into the complaint. - **E.5:** The request for legal aid was dismissed due to the hopelessness of the legal remedy. However, no court costs were incurred due to special circumstances (Art. 66 para. 1 sentence 2 BGG).
Summary of the Disposition
The Federal Court did not enter into the complaint and dismissed the request for legal aid. No court costs were incurred and no party compensation was ordered.
9C_642/2024: Judgment on the military service replacement fee for the year 2022
Summary of the Facts
A.________, naturalized in 2017 and no longer subject to military service due to age under the then-applicable law, was assessed for the military service replacement fee for the years 2018 to 2021 after the upper age limit was raised to 37 years on January 1, 2019. The decision for the year 2022 was contested, as was the request for the refund of previously made payments. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zug dismissed the complaint.
Summary of the Considerations
(E.1) The application meets all formal requirements and the Federal Court generally enters into the complaint. (E.2) The Federal Court reviews the objections limited to the asserted and justified objections; the factual determinations of the lower court are generally binding. (E.3) The military service replacement fee for the years 2018 to 2021 is not subject to the proceedings, as the corresponding decisions are final. Only the year 2022 is examined. (E.4) According to current legislation, the complainant is liable for the fee despite his naturalization at the age of 31 due to the new age limit of 37 years. The Federal Court states that there is no impermissible retroactive effect, as the military service replacement fee does not qualify as a continuing matter. The further objections, particularly violation of the prohibition of retroactivity, good faith, and discrimination, are dismissed as unfounded. (E.5) Court costs are imposed on the complainant.
Summary of the Disposition
The complainant's appeal is dismissed, and the court costs are imposed on him. The parties will be notified of the judgment in writing.
5A_902/2025: Non-disclosure of a debt collection
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ requested the non-disclosure of a debt collection initiated against him, as it was causing him disadvantages in his search for an apartment. The cantonal debt collection office refused the requested annotation referencing the relevant regulation of the OForm. The appeal to the cantonal supervisory authority was dismissed on the grounds that the requirements for non-disclosure according to Art. 8a para. 3 lit. d SchKG were not met.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1**: The complainant timely filed a civil complaint with the Federal Court against the decision of the cantonal supervisory authority. The Federal Court reviews the legality of the contested decision and refers to the principle that it applies the law ex officio (Art. 106 para. 1 BGG). It also clarifies that the complaint must be sufficiently substantiated and that the factual findings of the lower court are binding for the Federal Court, unless there is an arbitrary finding (Art. 105 para. 1 and 2 BGG).
- **E.2**: The cantonal supervisory authority correctly noted that according to Art. 8a para. 3 lit. d SchKG, only the behavior of the creditor regarding the assertion of the claim is decisive. The creditor had obtained provisional legal protection and had not taken further legal steps; however, this does not prevent the disclosure of the debt collection. Furthermore, it is not clear from the judgment of August 22, 2023, in which the limitation period of the payment order was established, that the underlying claim is null and void or even abusive.
- **E.3**: The Federal Court points out that the current legal regulation is to be applied. The revision of Art. 8a para. 3 lit. d SchKG, which will apply from January 1, 2026, providing an extended possibility of non-disclosure, was correctly not prioritized.
- **E.4**: The motivation of the complainant was insufficient, as he did not substantively engage with the central considerations of the cantonal supervisory authority. Accordingly, the Federal Court declares the complaint inadmissible.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint was declared inadmissible, the request for legal aid was dismissed, and the costs were imposed on the complainant.
8C_224/2025: Judgment concerning accident insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________, employed as a painter, reported an alleged accident event on October 11, 2022, during which he received material while on a ladder and subsequently experienced discomfort. The Swiss Accident Insurance Institute (Suva) denied a duty to provide benefits, as the definition of an accident according to Art. 4 ATSG and the conditions for an accident-like bodily injury were not met. The Social Security Court of the Canton of Zurich upheld this decision. A.________ appealed this judgment to the Federal Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
5A_435/2025: Judgment on the liability of an executor
Summary of the Facts
The testator A.A.________ passed away in 2001 and appointed H.E.________ as executor in his will. He accepted the mandate but resigned in 2006 at the request of the heirs. The heirs accused him of improper management of the mandate and demanded damages. After their claims were rejected in both first and second cantonal instances, the heirs appealed to the Federal Court. The present proceedings particularly concerned claims for damages against the executor as well as issues of limitation and the abuse of the plea of limitation.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
5A_1092/2025: Heir representation with limited authority
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, the legal heir of his father who passed away in 2012, requested in a submission to the District Court of Zurich, among other things, authorization for estate transactions. After a decision not to enter into the matter by the District Court, he appealed to the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich, which dismissed his appeal. Finally, he turned to the Federal Court. The Federal Court did not enter into the complaint due to lateness and in this respect obvious inadmissibility.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
5A_1080/2025: Cost liability in the procedure for the dissolution of the joint household
Summary of the Facts
In connection with an ongoing procedure for the dissolution of the joint household before the District Court of Baden, the complainant A.________ was denied legal aid. In the appeal proceedings, the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau ordered her to pay a deposit of CHF 500. The complainant filed an appeal with the Federal Court on December 15, 2025, against this order.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
7B_262/2025: Access to files in criminal proceedings: Restrictions and their proportionality
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a criminal complaint against the expert B.________ for creating a false report, defamation, and eventual malicious gossip. In the course of the criminal proceedings, the complainant requested access to certain conversation recordings, which were granted by the public prosecutor's office of the Canton of Solothurn under restrictions, particularly allowing only on-site access and no possibility to make copies. This was confirmed by the Complaints Chamber of the Higher Court of the Canton of Solothurn. The complainant challenged this decision with a complaint before the Federal Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
9C_570/2025: Judgment on the VAT obligation of the A.________ Foundation and the cost regulation of the Federal Administrative Court
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ Foundation, active for charitable purposes, was retroactively registered as liable for VAT by the Federal Tax Administration (ESTV) from 2014 and received a tax claim of CHF 473,457. After an objection decision, this was reduced to CHF 456,037. The Federal Administrative Court partially upheld a complaint from the foundation and rejected the tax claim for some disputed points. In the question of cost regulation, the ESTV partially prevailed.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
5A_1000/2025: Non-admission of a complaint regarding bankruptcy opening
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ GmbH in liquidation filed a complaint with the Federal Court against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Lucerne, which confirmed the bankruptcy over it on November 11, 2025. The bankruptcy had previously been opened by the District Court of Kriens. The complainant argued that her right to be heard had been violated due to a faulty delivery, and furthermore, the prohibition of arbitrariness was violated.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.