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 other 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_721/2025: Decision on the inadmissibility of a complaint in asylum law
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, a national 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 on November 3, 2025, and ordered her expulsion from Switzerland. The Federal Administrative Court dismissed an appeal against this decision as well as requests for legal aid and official legal representation (judgment of November 28, 2025). The complainant filed an appeal to the Federal Court on December 15, 2025, requesting the annulment of the judgment, the reopening of the proceedings, and the determination 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). However, 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, the appeal in public law matters regarding asylum decisions of the Federal Administrative Court is inadmissible, except in specific exceptional cases, which are not present here. - **E.3.2:** The present case 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 Division decided in the simplified procedure according to Art. 108 para. 1 lit. a BGG not to admit the appeal. - **E.5:** The request for legal aid was rejected due to the hopelessness of the legal remedy. However, no court costs were charged due to special circumstances (Art. 66 para. 1 sentence 2 BGG).
Summary of the Disposition
The Federal Court did not admit the appeal and rejected the request for legal aid. No court costs were incurred, and no party compensation was ordered.
9C_642/2024: Judgment regarding the military duty replacement fee for the year 2022
Summary of the Facts
A.________, naturalized in 2017 and no longer subject to military duty due to age under the law at that time, was assessed for the military duty replacement fee for the years 2018 to 2021 after the age limit was raised to 37 years on January 1, 2019. The decision for the year 2022 was contested, and a refund of previously made payments was requested. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zug dismissed the appeal.
Summary of the Considerations
(E.1) The application meets all formal requirements, and the Federal Court generally admits the appeal. (E.2) The Federal Court reviews the objections limited to those asserted and substantiated; the factual findings of the lower court are generally binding. (E.3) The military duty replacement fee for the years 2018 to 2021 is not the subject of 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 replacement 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 duty replacement fee does not constitute a continuing situation. The further objections, particularly the violation of the prohibition of retroactivity, good faith, and discrimination, are rejected 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 are informed of the judgment in writing.
5A_902/2025: Non-disclosure of a debt collection
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ requested 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, referring to the relevant regulation of the OForm. The appeal to the cantonal supervisory authority was rejected on the grounds that the conditions 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 an appeal in civil matters with the Federal Court against the decision of the cantonal supervisory authority. The Federal Court reviews the legality of the challenged decision and refers to the principle that it applies the law ex officio (Art. 106 para. 1 BGG). It also clarifies that the appeal must be sufficiently substantiated and that the factual findings of the lower court are binding on the Federal Court, unless there is a capricious 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 enforcement and had not taken further legal steps; however, this does not prevent the disclosure of the debt collection. Furthermore, it is not evident from the judgment of August 22, 2023, which established the limitation period of the payment order, that the underlying claim was 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 comes into force on January 1, 2026, and which provides for an extended possibility of non-disclosure, was correctly not applied retroactively.
- **E.4**: The motivation of the complainant was insufficient, as he did not engage substantively with the central considerations of the cantonal supervisory authority. Accordingly, the Federal Court declares the appeal inadmissible.
Summary of the Disposition
The appeal was declared inadmissible, the request for legal aid was dismissed, and the costs were imposed on the complainant.
8C_224/2025: Judgment regarding accident insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________, employed as a painter, reported an alleged accident event on October 11, 2022, in which he received materials while on a ladder and subsequently experienced complaints. The Swiss Accident Insurance Institution (Suva) denied a duty to provide benefits, as the definition of an accident according to Art. 4 ATSG and the requirements for an accident-like bodily injury were not met. The Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich upheld this decision. A.________ appealed this judgment to the Federal Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_435/2025: Judgment on the liability of an executor
Summary of the Facts
The deceased A.A.________ passed away in 2001 and appointed H.E.________ as executor in his will. He accepted the mandate but resigned it in 2006 at the request of the heirs. The heirs accused him of improper management of the mandate and demanded compensation for damages. After their claims were rejected in the first and second cantonal instances, the heirs brought the matter to the Federal Court. The current proceedings concerned in particular claims for damages against the executor as well as questions of limitation and the abusive nature of the plea of limitation.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_1092/2025: Heir representation with limited authority
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, legal heir of his father who passed away in 2012, requested from the District Court of Zurich, among other things, the authorization for estate transactions. After a non-admission decision by the District Court, he appealed to the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich, which dismissed the appeal. Finally, he turned to the Federal Court. This did not admit the appeal due to lateness and in terms of obvious inadmissibility.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_1080/2025: Cost liability in proceedings for termination of the joint household
Summary of the Facts
In connection with an ongoing procedure for termination of the joint household before the District Court of Baden, the complainant A.________ was denied legal aid. In the appellate procedure, the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau required her to pay a cost advance of CHF 500. Against this, the complainant filed an appeal with the Federal Court on December 15, 2025.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on 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 possibly slander. 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 by allowing access only on-site and without the possibility of making copies. This was confirmed by the appeal chamber of the Higher Court of the Canton of Solothurn. The complainant challenged this decision with an appeal to the Federal Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
9C_570/2025: Judgment regarding the VAT liability of the A.________ Foundation and the cost allocation of the Federal Administrative Court
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ Foundation, engaged in charitable purposes, was retroactively registered as liable for VAT from 2014 by the Federal Tax Administration (ESTV) and received a tax claim of CHF 473,457.-. After an objection decision, this amount was reduced to CHF 456,037.-. The Federal Administrative Court partially upheld an appeal from the Foundation and dismissed the tax claim for some disputed points. On the issue of cost allocation, the ESTV partially prevailed.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_1000/2025: Non-admission of an appeal regarding the opening of bankruptcy
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ GmbH in liquidation filed an appeal with the Federal Court against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Lucerne, which confirmed the bankruptcy against it on November 11, 2025. Prior to this, bankruptcy had already been opened by the District Court of Kriens. The complainant argued that the right to be heard was violated due to a faulty delivery, and furthermore, the prohibition of arbitrariness was violated.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.