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 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 by decision of 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 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 establishment of various constitutional violations. She also 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, the matter was not returned as the outcome of the proceedings did not require 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 in connection with an unsuccessful asylum application, hence 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 under the simplified procedure according to Art. 108 para. 1 lit. a BGG not to admit the complaint. - **E.5:** The request for free legal assistance 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 Disposition
The Federal Court did not admit the complaint and dismissed the request for free legal assistance. No court costs were incurred and no party compensation was ordered.
9C_642/2024: Judgment on the military duty 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 duty replacement fee 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 complaint.
Summary of the Considerations
(E.1) The submission meets all formal requirements and the Federal Court basically admits the complaint. (E.2) The Federal Court reviews the objections limited to the asserted and substantiated complaints; 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 relevant decisions are final. Only the year 2022 is reviewed. (E.4) According to current legislation, despite his naturalization at the age of 31, the complainant is liable due to the new age limit of 37 years. The Federal Court states that there is no impermissible retroactive effect since the military duty replacement fee does not constitute a continuing 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 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, referring to the relevant regulation of the OForm. The complaint 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 on 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 legal opening and had not taken further legal steps; however, this does not prevent the disclosure of the debt collection. Furthermore, from the judgment of August 22, 2023, which established the expiration of the payment order, it is not apparent 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 amendment of Art. 8a para. 3 lit. d SchKG, which provides for an extended possibility of non-disclosure and is to take effect from January 1, 2026, was correctly not applied retroactively.
- **E.4**: The complainant'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 complaint inadmissible.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint was declared inadmissible, the request for free legal assistance 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 from October 11, 2022, during which he received materials while on a ladder and subsequently experienced complaints. The Swiss Accident Insurance Institute (Suva) denied any obligation to pay, 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 Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich upheld this decision. A.________ appealed this judgment to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found 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 it at the request of the heirs in 2006. The heirs accused him of improper management of the mandate and demanded damages. After their claims were rejected at the first and second cantonal levels, the heirs appealed to the Federal Court. The present proceedings focused in particular on damage claims against the executor as well as issues of limitation and the abusiveness of the plea of limitation.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found 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, the authorization for estate transactions. After a decision not to proceed 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 admit the complaint due to delay and obvious inadmissibility.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_1080/2025: Cost liability in the proceedings 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 appeal proceedings, the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau ordered her to pay a cost advance of CHF 500. The complainant filed an appeal with the Federal Court on December 15, 2025, against this.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found 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 preparing 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 with restrictions, particularly allowing access only on-site and without the possibility of making copies. This was confirmed by the appeals chamber of the Higher Court of the Canton of Solothurn. The complainant challenged this decision with a complaint to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_570/2025: Judgment on the VAT liability of the Foundation A.________ and on the cost regulation of the Federal Administrative Court
Summary of the Facts
The Foundation A.________, engaged in 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 dismissed the tax claim for some disputed points. In the cost regulation issue, the ESTV partially prevailed.
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. The bankruptcy had previously been opened by the District Court of Kriens. The complainant argued that the right to be heard was violated due to a faulty service, and that the prohibition of arbitrariness was also violated.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.