Latest Verdicts of the Federal Court
Here you will find the most recent verdicts of the Federal Court (BGer) from bger.ch. For the first three verdicts, we provide detailed summaries including facts, considerations, and dispositions. For the further verdicts, you will find a summary of the facts. The complete summaries of all verdicts are available on the Lexplorer portal. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest verdicts 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 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 against this decision as well as the requests for free legal assistance 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, the reopening of the proceedings, and the determination of various constitutional violations. Furthermore, she requested free legal assistance.
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 any additional measure. - **E.3.1:** According to Art. 83 lit. d no. 1 BGG, the complaint 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 the expulsion in connection with an unsuccessful asylum application, thus Art. 83 lit. d no. 1 BGG applies in full. - **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 enter into the complaint. - **E.5:** The request for free legal assistance was rejected due to the hopelessness of the appeal. However, no court fees were charged 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 rejected the request for free legal assistance. No court costs were incurred, and no party compensation was awarded.
9C_642/2024: Judgment regarding the substitute military service contribution 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 substitute military service contribution 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 examines the objections limited to the asserted and substantiated complaints; the factual findings of the lower court are generally binding. (E.3) The substitute military service contribution 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, despite his naturalization at the age of 31, the complainant is liable for the contribution due to the new age limit of 37 years. The Federal Court states that there is no impermissible retroactive effect, as the substitute military service contribution is not considered a continuing situation. The further objections, particularly 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 complaint is dismissed, and the court costs are imposed on him. The parties are notified of the judgment in writing.
5A_902/2025: Non-disclosure of an enforcement
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ requested the non-disclosure of an enforcement initiated against him, as it was causing him disadvantages in his search for an apartment. The cantonal enforcement 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 under 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 examines 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 on the Federal Court, unless there is a willful 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 enforcing creditor concerning the assertion of the claim is decisive. The creditor had obtained the provisional legal opening and had not taken any further legal steps; however, this does not prevent the disclosure of the enforcement. Furthermore, it is not evident from the judgment of August 22, 2023, which determined the limitation period of the payment order, that the underlying claim is void or 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 effect on January 1, 2026, and provides for an extended possibility of non-disclosure, 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 Disposition
The complaint was declared inadmissible, the request for free legal assistance was rejected, 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, where he felt discomfort while receiving material on a ladder. The Swiss Accident Insurance Institute (Suva) denied a duty to perform, as the concept of 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.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_435/2025: Judgment regarding 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 handling of the mandate and sought damages. After their claims were rejected in the first and second cantonal instances, the heirs appealed to the Federal Court. The current proceedings were particularly concerned with claims for damages against the executor as well as issues of limitation and the abuse of the plea of limitation.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_1092/2025: Inheritance representation with limited authority
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, a legal heir of his father who passed away in 2012, requested in a submission to the District Court of Zurich, among other things, the authorization for inheritance transactions. Following a decision of non-admittance by the District Court, he appealed to the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich, which rejected it. Finally, he turned to the Federal Court. This court did not enter into the complaint due to lateness and in that respect, obvious inadmissibility.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found 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 a pending procedure for the dissolution of the joint household before the District Court of Baden, the complainant A.________ was denied free legal assistance. In the appellate procedure, the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau summoned her to pay a cost advance of CHF 500. Against this, the complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Court on December 15, 2025.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_262/2025: Access to records in criminal proceedings: Restrictions and their proportionality
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a criminal complaint against the expert B.________ for preparing a false report, defamation, and subsequently 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 onsite 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 a complaint to the Federal Court.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_570/2025: Judgment regarding the VAT liability of the A.________ Foundation and the cost regulation 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 demand of CHF 473,457.-. Following a decision on opposition, this was reduced to CHF 456,037.-. The Federal Administrative Court partially upheld a complaint from the foundation and rejected the tax demand for several disputed points. In the matter of cost regulation, the ESTV partially prevailed.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found 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. Previously, the bankruptcy had already been opened by the District Court of Kriens. The complainant argued that their right to be heard was violated due to a faulty notification, and furthermore that the prohibition of arbitrariness was violated.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.