Latest Rulings of the Federal Court
Here you can find the most recent rulings of the Federal Court (BGer) from bger.ch. For the first three rulings, we present detailed summaries with facts, considerations, and dispositive parts. For the subsequent rulings, you will find a summary of the facts. Complete summaries of all rulings are available on the Lexplorer portal. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest rulings tailored to your areas of law.
2C_721/2025: Decision regarding 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 a complaint filed against this decision as well as requests for legal aid and official legal representation (ruling of November 28, 2025). The complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Court on December 15, 2025, requesting the annulment of the ruling, reopening of the proceedings, and 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 procedural outcome did not require any additional measures. - **E.3.1:** According to Art. 83 lit. d No. 1 BGG, complaints 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 the expulsion related to 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 under Art. 108 para. 1 lit. a BGG not to enter into the complaint. - **E.5:** The request for legal aid was rejected 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 Dispositive Part
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: Ruling 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 law at that time, was assessed for the military service replacement fee for the years 2018 to 2021 after the age limit was raised to 37 years as of January 1, 2019. The decision for the year 2022 was contested, and a refund of previously made payments was also requested. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zug dismissed the complaint.
Summary of the Considerations
(E.1) The submission meets all formal requirements, and the Federal Court generally enters into the complaint. (E.2) The Federal Court reviews the objections limited to the claims made and substantiated; the factual findings of the lower court are generally binding. (E.3) The military service 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 since the military service replacement fee does not qualify as a continuous situation. The other objections, particularly violations 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 Dispositive Part
The complainant's complaint is dismissed, and the court costs are imposed on him. The parties will be informed of the ruling 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, referring to the relevant regulation of the OForm. The complaint to the cantonal supervisory authority was dismissed 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 a complaint in civil matters 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 stated that according to Art. 8a para. 3 lit. d SchKG, only the behavior of the enforcing creditor regarding the assertion of the claim is decisive. The creditor had obtained provisional enforcement and had not taken any further legal actions; 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 statute of limitations of the payment order, that the underlying claim is 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 provides for an extended possibility of non-disclosure, effective from January 1, 2026, was correctly not applied retroactively.
- **E.4**: The complainant's motivation was insufficient, as he did not substantively address the central considerations of the cantonal supervisory authority. Accordingly, the Federal Court declares the complaint inadmissible.
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The complaint was declared inadmissible, the request for legal aid was dismissed, and the costs were imposed on the complainant.
8C_224/2025: Ruling regarding accident insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________, employed as a painter, reported an alleged accident event on October 11, 2022, during which he received materials while on a ladder and subsequently experienced complaints. The Swiss Accident Insurance Institution (Suva) denied a duty to provide benefits, stating that the definition of an accident according to Art. 4 ATSG and the prerequisites for an accident-like bodily injury were not met. The Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich upheld this decision. A.________ appealed this ruling to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found on the Portal.
5A_435/2025: Ruling 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 it at the request of the heirs in 2006. The heirs accused him of improper management of the mandate and sought damages. After their claims were rejected at both the first and second cantonal instance, the heirs turned to the Federal Court. The present proceedings particularly concerned claims for damages against the executor as well as questions of limitation and the abuse of the plea of limitation.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found on 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 non-admission decision by the District Court, he appealed to the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich, which dismissed it. He ultimately turned to the Federal Court, which did not enter into the complaint due to delay and obvious inadmissibility in this regard.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found on the Portal.
5A_1080/2025: Liability for costs in the procedure for the dissolution of the joint household
Summary of the Facts
In connection with ongoing proceedings for the dissolution of the joint household before the District Court of Baden, the complainant A.________ was denied legal aid. In the appellate proceedings, the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau required her to pay a cost advance of CHF 500. The complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Court on December 15, 2025, against this.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found on the Portal.
7B_262/2025: Access to files in criminal proceedings: Limitations and their proportionality
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a criminal complaint against the expert B.________ for producing a false report, defamation, and possibly slander. In the course of the criminal proceedings, the complainant requested access to certain recorded conversations, which was granted by the public prosecutor's office of the Canton of Solothurn with restrictions, particularly by allowing access only on-site and without the possibility of making 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.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found on the Portal.
9C_570/2025: Ruling on the VAT liability of the Foundation A.________ and the cost regulation of the Federal Administrative Court
Summary of the Facts
The Foundation A.________, operating for charitable purposes, was retroactively registered as VAT liable by the Federal Tax Administration (ESTV) starting from 2014 and received a tax demand of CHF 473,457. After an objection decision, this was reduced to CHF 456,037. The Federal Administrative Court partially upheld a complaint of the foundation and rejected the tax demand for some disputed points. In the matter of cost regulation, the ESTV partially prevailed.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found on 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. Previously, the 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 that the prohibition of arbitrariness was also violated.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found on the Portal.