Latest Rulings of the Federal Court
Here you will find the latest rulings of the Federal Court (BGer) from bger.ch. For the first three rulings, we present detailed summaries including facts, considerations, and dispositive parts. For the other rulings, you will find a summary of the facts. The complete summaries of all rulings are available on the portal of Lexplorer. 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 an appeal in asylum law
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, 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 requests for free legal assistance and official legal representation (judgment of November 28, 2025). The appellant 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 free legal assistance.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The appellant 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 remand was waived since 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 that do not exist 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 fully applies. - **E.3.3:** A subsidiary constitutional complaint according to Art. 113 BGG is also excluded. - **E.4:** The President of the Division decided in a simplified procedure according to Art. 108 para. 1 lit. a BGG not to enter into the appeal. - **E.5:** The request for free legal assistance was denied due to the hopelessness of the legal remedy. Court costs were not imposed due to special circumstances (Art. 66 para. 1 sentence 2 BGG).
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The Federal Court did not enter into the appeal 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 military duty replacement tax for the year 2022
Summary of the Facts
A.________, naturalized in 2017 and no longer subject to military duty due to age under the then-applicable law, was assessed for the military duty replacement tax for the years 2018 to 2021 after the maximum 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 requested. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zug dismissed the appeal.
Summary of the Considerations
(E.1) The submission meets all formal requirements, and the Federal Court generally enters into the appeal. (E.2) The Federal Court reviews the complaints limited to the asserted and substantiated objections; the factual findings of the lower court are generally binding. (E.3) The military duty replacement tax for the years 2018 to 2021 is not the subject of the proceedings, as the corresponding decisions are final. Only the year 2022 is reviewed. (E.4) According to current legislation, the appellant is liable for replacement duty 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 retroactivity, as the military duty replacement tax does not qualify as a continuing legal situation. The further objections, particularly the violation of the prohibition of retroactivity, good faith, and discrimination, are dismissed as unfounded. (E.5) Court costs are imposed on the appellant.
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The appellant's appeal is dismissed, and the court costs are imposed on him. The parties will be informed of the judgment in writing.
5A_902/2025: Non-disclosure of a debt collection
Summary of the Facts
The appellant 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 citing the relevant provision 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 appellant timely filed a civil appeal 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 appeal must be sufficiently substantiated and that the factual determinations of the lower court are binding on the Federal Court unless there is an arbitrary determination (Art. 105 para. 1 and 2 BGG).
- **E.2**: The cantonal supervisory authority correctly determined 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 the provisional legal opening 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, in which the limitation of the payment order was established, 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 and will take effect from January 1, 2026, was correctly not applied retroactively.
- **E.4**: The appellant's motivation 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 Dispositive Part
The appeal was declared inadmissible, the request for free legal assistance was rejected, and the costs were imposed on the appellant.
8C_224/2025: Judgment regarding accident insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________, employed as a painter, reported a supposed accident event from 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, stating that the definition of an accident according to Art. 4 ATSG and the requirements 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 negligent management of the mandate and demanded compensation for damages. After their claims were rejected in the first and second instance, the heirs approached the Federal Court. The current proceedings specifically concerned claims for damages against the executor, as well as questions 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 appellant, a legal heir of his father who passed away in 2012, requested, among other things, authorization for estate transactions from the District Court of Zurich. After a decision of non-admittance from the District Court, he appealed to the Cantonal Court of Zurich, which dismissed his appeal. He then turned to the Federal Court. The Federal Court did not enter into the appeal due to lateness and obvious inadmissibility.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
5A_1080/2025: Cost obligation in the procedure for the termination of the joint household
Summary of the Facts
In connection with an ongoing procedure for the termination of the joint household before the District Court of Baden, the appellant A.________ was denied free legal assistance. In the appellate proceeding, the Cantonal Court of Aargau required her to pay a cost advance of CHF 500. The appellant filed an appeal to the Federal Court against this on December 15, 2025.
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 appellant A.________ filed a criminal complaint against the expert B.________ for creating a false report, defamation, and, alternatively, slander. In the course of the criminal proceedings, the appellant requested access to certain recorded conversations, 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 Appeals Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Solothurn. The appellant challenged this decision with an appeal to the Federal Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
9C_570/2025: Judgment regarding the VAT obligation of the Foundation A.________ and the cost regulation of the Federal Administrative Court
Summary of the Facts
The Foundation A.________, active for charitable purposes, was retroactively registered as VAT liable by the Federal Tax Administration (FTA) 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 dismissed the tax claim for some points in dispute. In the matter of cost regulation, the FTA partially prevailed.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
5A_1000/2025: Non-admission of an appeal regarding bankruptcy opening
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 over it on November 11, 2025. The bankruptcy had previously been opened by the District Court of Kriens. The appellant argued that the right to be heard was violated due to a faulty notification and that the prohibition of arbitrariness was also violated.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.