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 dispositives. For the other judgments, you will find a summary of the facts. The complete summaries of all judgments are available on the portal of Lexplorer. There you can configure your newsletter, and you will receive the latest judgments tailored to your legal areas.
2C_671/2025: Judgment on international mutual assistance in tax matters
Summary of the Facts
The Ukrainian tax authority requested mutual assistance from the Federal Tax Administration (ESTV) based on the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (MAC) and the double taxation agreement between Switzerland and Ukraine (DBA CH-UA). It concerned interest and dividend income that had flowed from Ukrainian companies to a Cypriot company (A.________). The information holder was a Swiss company (B.________ AG). The ESTV ordered the provision of mutual assistance. A.________ appealed to the Federal Administrative Court, which partially upheld the appeal and instructed the ESTV to include notes on confidentiality and limited use of the information. The other points of appeal were rejected. A.________ then filed a public law appeal to the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The Federal Court examines jurisdiction and the prerequisites for the admissibility of the appeal. According to Art. 84a BGG, the appeal in the field of international mutual assistance in tax matters is only permissible if there is a legal question of fundamental importance or the case is particularly significant. - **E.1.1:** A legal question of fundamental importance is affirmed if the decision can be guiding for practice. However, the appellant raises a legal question concerning Art. 177 ZPO, which is not specific to mutual assistance. - **E.1.3:** The lower court examined the principle of availability, principle of subsidiarity, principle of specialty, and the expected significance in detail and found no violation of these principles. The appeal does not raise any new legal questions. - **E.1.4:** A particularly significant case requires serious deficiencies in the foreign proceedings or qualified violations of procedural principles. The allegations of political motivation and possible abuse of the information are not sufficiently substantiated, and a qualified violation of fundamental rights is not demonstrated. - **E.1.5:** The Federal Court finds that neither a legal question of fundamental importance nor a particularly significant case exists.
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Court did not admit the appeal and imposed court costs on the appellant. No party compensation was awarded.
7B_171/2025: Judgment on official defense and right to be heard
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was sanctioned by the Regional Public Prosecutor's Office of Berner Jura-Seeland with a penal order dated August 3, 2022, for refusal to provide his name, violations of the Narcotic Drugs Act, and insult. Lawyer Julian Burkhalter criticized the valid service of penal orders and filed a complaint against the penal order. Before the Regional Court of Berner Jura-Seeland, A.________ requested the suspension of the proceedings PEN 24 301 and the appointment of Lawyer Burkhalter as official defense counsel, which was denied. The Cantonal Court of Bern found a violation of the right to be heard by the Regional Court of Berner Jura-Seeland but dismissed the appeal as far as it was admissible.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1**: A complaint was filed against the decision of the Cantonal Court in criminal matters. The Federal Court examines the requirements for entering the appeal. The appeal is admissible. - **E.2**: The appellant complains about the violation of his right to be heard. The Federal Court states that a non-serious violation of the right to be heard in the appeal process can be remedied if the appellate court freely reviews the factual and legal situation. The remedy was rightly applied by the Cantonal Court. - **E.3**: The claim for official defense according to Art. 132 StPO is examined. The Federal Court notes that the criminal case does not constitute a trivial case if a prison sentence of more than 4 months or a fine of more than 120 daily rates is to be expected. In the present case, there is only a fine of 30 daily rates, and no special factual or legal difficulties are apparent. The Cantonal Court rightly decided that no official defense is necessary. - **E.4**: The appellant criticizes the partial cost allocation of the lower court proceedings. However, the Federal Court confirms that the cost regulation lies within the discretion of the lower court and the remedy of the violation of the right to be heard was appropriately considered.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal and the request for legal aid were dismissed, and the court costs were imposed on the appellant.
7B_1088/2025: Questions of form validity in a criminal appeal: Inadmissibility
Summary of the Facts
The 2nd Chamber of the Criminal Court of the Bernese Oberland did not admit the appeal from A.________ against a decision of the Security Directorate of the Canton of Bern dated May 9, 2025, on September 9, 2025. On October 10, 2025, A.________, through his representative named "Alter Ego", filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Court against this decision. The President of the Federal Court requested the appellant by means of two separately sent orders to submit a signed copy of the appeal, stating that otherwise it would not be admitted; however, the appellant did not respond.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** According to Art. 42 para. 5 BGG (Federal Court Act), a signed appeal document must be submitted. The President can set a deadline for remedying such formal deficiencies and point out that failure to comply will result in the appeal being ignored. According to Art. 44 para. 2 BGG, a delivery by post is considered to have occurred if the notification of the collection of the document is ignored within the seven-day period. Two such deliveries were made here, without the appellant responding. - **E.1.2:** The failure to submit a signed appeal within the set deadline leads to the obvious inadmissibility of the appeal (Art. 108 para. 1 lit. a BGG). - **E.2:** The appellant bears the costs of the proceedings, which were set at CHF 500, corresponding to the procedural measures carried out so far (Art. 66 para. 1 and 2 BGG).
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal was declared inadmissible, and the court costs of CHF 500 were imposed on the appellant.
1C_469/2025: Decision on an appeal regarding building permits with conditions
Summary of the Facts
The construction section of the city of Zurich granted the D.________ Foundation a building permit for a replacement construction with 56 apartments, a kindergarten, and three parking spaces. The permit was supplemented by conditions that were challenged by affected neighbors. Subsequently, the complaints were partially upheld by the cantonal authorities, and further conditions were added to the permit. The complainants then filed an appeal with the Federal Court, challenging the judgment of the Administrative Court as well as the conditions.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_512/2025: Inadmissibility of the appeal against building permit
Summary of the Facts
The building authority of Meilen granted a respondent a building permit on November 16, 2021, for four apartment buildings as a site development along with a collective garage. After complaints, this was confirmed by the Building Appeals Court of the Canton of Zurich and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich, but with additional conditions that must be fulfilled before construction begins. The complainants then appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5F_69/2025: Judgment regarding a second request for revision and request for recusal
Summary of the Facts
The applicant requested the revision of the Federal Court decision (5F_47/2025) from October 7, 2025, which had previously dismissed a renewed request for revision against the judgment 5A_566/2025 from July 18, 2025. Additionally, the applicant filed various requests for recusal against members of the bench.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_819/2025: Inadmissibility of the appeal against detention order
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was sentenced to a 90-day prison term by a penal order from the Geneva public prosecutor dated November 6, 2020, particularly for illegal residence. After the enforcement of the sentence was initiated by the cantonal authorities, A.________ objected to the detention order of June 26, 2025, and the execution order of June 30, 2025, whereby his cantonal legal remedy was declared inadmissible by the Chambre pénale de recours. The appellant then filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_849/2025: Inadmissibility of the appeal due to insufficient justification in criminal proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ initiated an administrative investigation in 2018 due to a conflict regarding plagiarism and scientific integrity with a postdoctoral researcher, which was concluded without disciplinary consequences. In October 2024, A.________ filed a criminal complaint against E.________, a legal advisor of the school C.________, with allegations such as violation of official secrecy, unworthy representation of interests, and defamation, regarding the transmission of information from the administrative investigation to F.________, a former president of a commission who made statements about it in a British civil trial. The cantonal ministry declared this complaint as inadmissible. The cantonal appeals chamber of the Canton of Vaud dismissed the appeal filed by A.________ on June 2, 2025, due to a lack of substantively presented arguments.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_65/2025: Assessment of a development plan considering habitat protection
Summary of the Facts
The judgment concerns a dispute over the approval of a development plan "Tannenweg" in the municipality of Obersiggenthal, which envisions the widening of an existing road and passes through a potentially protected habitat. The appellant opposes the effects of the project on this habitat, particularly on the population of the midwife toad. Various cantonal and federal legal provisions on nature and homeland protection and the preservation of protected habitats are central. The lower courts assessed the effects as minor and approved the project.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_600/2024: Expulsion and revision
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was sentenced by the Regional Court of Jura bernois-Seeland on December 1, 2022, among other things, for multiple thefts, property damage, violations of Art. 115 para. 1 lit. b LEI and other offenses to a prison sentence of 7 months and 10 daily rates. The court also ordered outpatient psychiatric care and waived expulsion. The second criminal chamber of the Bernese Court decided on June 17, 2024, on appeal by the public prosecutor's office, to expel A.________ and to register this measure in the Schengen Information System (SIS). A.________ then filed a complaint with the Federal Court against the expulsion. In parallel, a request for revision was submitted, which the 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Bernese Court rejected on November 20, 2024.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1107/2025: Inadmissibility of an appeal due to insufficient justification
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, approached the Federal Court against a decision of the Chambre des recours pénale des Tribunal cantonal du Canton de Vaud dated August 25, 2025, which declared her cantonal appeal inadmissible due to lack of justification. The subject of the dispute concerned a decision of the Attorney General of Vaud, which had decided not to initiate her criminal complaint. The Federal Court dismissed the appeal because it did not meet the requirements for adequate justification.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_475/2025: Dismissal of the appeal due to inadmissibility
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ was initially fined by the cantonal tax office of Valais for failure to submit his tax return for the tax period 2022, and subsequently officially assessed. The corresponding legal remedies were unsuccessful both at the cantonal level and before the Federal Court, as inadmissibility or lack of substantiation was established in each case. Subsequently, the appellant submitted a request for revision for cantonal and federal decisions, which was also declared inadmissible, as no revision-relevant facts or evidence were presented.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_813/2025: Decision regarding marriage protection measures
Summary of the Facts
The parties, married since 1999, have three children together and live separately. After a request by the wife for marriage protection measures in 2020, the parties initially agreed on certain aspects, such as custody, visitation rights, and monthly interim maintenance payments. The suspension of the proceedings was lifted at the end of 2022, and the Cantonal Court ordered the husband to pay maintenance contributions to the wife. The husband appealed against the decision of the Obergericht of the Canton of Obwalden, which did not recognize his objections. The appeal was then escalated to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1049/2025: Appeal against the refusal of the electronic monitoring regime and its inadmissibility due to insufficient justification.
Summary of the Facts
The appeal concerns the refusal of the electronic monitoring regime within the framework of the enforcement of a prison sentence. The appellant was repeatedly convicted of various offenses. The lower court rejected the monitoring regime on the grounds that a high risk of recidivism exists.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_622/2025: Decision on the question of the admissibility of the appeal regarding a dispute in the area of old-age and survivors' insurance (AHV)
Summary of the Facts
A.________, former officer of the company B.________ SA, was requested by the Caisse de compensation des entrepreneurs according to Art. 52 LAVS to pay damages amounting to CHF 69,318.55. He claimed to have only been a "straw man" and to have had no actual influence on the company. After his opposition (dated May 23, 2025) was considered late by the fund and no decision was made on the opposition, the cantonal court declared the appeal as premature and consequently inadmissible. The matter was referred back to the fund for it to decide on the admissibility of the opposition. A.________ filed an appeal against this decision with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_670/2025: Judgment on international mutual assistance in tax matters
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Tax Administration (ESTV) received a request for mutual assistance from the State Tax Service of Ukraine for information about the Cypriot company A.________. It concerns the clarification of interest and dividend income from Ukrainian companies to A.________ and establishing the identity of the beneficial owner. A.________ opposed the provision of mutual assistance. The Federal Administrative Court partially upheld her appeal, allowed the mutual assistance, however with notes on confidentiality and restrictions on the use of the information by the requesting authority.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_983/2025: Judgment regarding the arrangement of visitation rights and guardianship
Summary of the Facts
The father (A.________) and the mother (B.________) are disputing the mother's visitation rights concerning their ten-year-old son, C.________, who lives with the father. In the past, the execution of supervised visitations failed due to the mother's health condition and other obstacles. The KESB ordered a gradual contact buildup between mother and son following a corresponding request from the guardian. The lower courts (District Council and Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich) confirmed this arrangement and rejected the father's requests for further investigations. The father requested the Federal Court to revoke the mother's visitation rights, continue the guardianship unchanged, and conduct further evidence gathering.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8F_16/2025: Judgment regarding request for restoration of deadline in the field of disability insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________ requested the restoration of the appeal deadline and thus the resumption of a procedure that was concluded with a judgment dated July 30, 2025. The request was made after the advance payment of costs was not made even within a granted extension.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7F_50/2025: Judgment on the request for revision
Summary of the Facts
A.________ submitted a request for revision of his judgment 7B_875/2025 from October 21, 2025. Prior to this, the Federal Court had not admitted the appeal against a decision of the Cantonal Court of Graubünden.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_700/2025: Non-admission of an appeal regarding federal referenda
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed an appeal against the federal referenda of November 30, 2025, concerning two popular initiatives (Service-citoyen initiative and initiative for a future), which concerned both the issuance of voting rights certificates in the Canton of Bern and the design of the ballots. The Cantonal Council of Bern dismissed her voting appeal on November 12, 2025, as far as it was admissible. In a submission to the Federal Court dated November 24, 2025, the appellant requested the annulment of the lower court's decision and the declaration of the invalidity of both votes.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1340/2024: Judgment on expulsion and criminal procedural questions
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and B.________ were initially convicted by the District Court of Hinwil for, among other things, deprivation of liberty, kidnapping, and coercion. They appealed against the judgments of this court. The Cantonal Court of Zurich largely upheld the guilty verdicts, rejected the objections to local jurisdiction and expulsion, and slightly adjusted the sentences. A.________ was also sentenced to a five-year expulsion with registration in the Schengen Information System (SIS). Both appellants filed criminal appeals with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1068/2025: Official defense; non-admission of appeal due to non-payment of advance costs
Summary of the Facts
The Cantonal Court of Bern dismissed an appeal from the appellants regarding official defense on September 3, 2025, as far as it was admissible. The appellants filed an appeal with the Federal Court on October 8, 2025, and were asked to pay an advance on costs. After the granted extension expired, they did not comply with this request.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_139/2025: Judgment on disability pension
Summary of the Facts
A.________, born in 1976, applied on November 9, 2020, for benefits from the disability insurance due to the consequences of a meniscus injury. The IV office of the Canton of Zurich repeatedly denied his claim for a disability pension after various medical assessments, including a report from SMAB AG. The appeal against this was dismissed by the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich and finally by the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_696/2025: Agreement and non-admission of appeals regarding international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ AG, C.________ Limited, and D.________ Limited each separately filed appeals against partial closure orders from the Federal Prosecutor's Office, which ordered the release of documents related to bank accounts to Ukraine. These mutual legal assistance measures were requested in connection with a criminal proceeding against B.________ in Ukraine. The Federal Criminal Court dismissed the appeals. The three companies requested the Federal Court to annul the lower court's decisions and to refuse mutual legal assistance.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1F_19/2025: Judgment regarding request for revision
Summary of the Facts
A.________ submitted a request for revision against the judgment of the Federal Court (1C_440/2025 of August 26, 2025). He criticized the lack of conduct of the exchange of writings as well as the wrongful handling of his previous submission and the returned original attachments. Furthermore, he criticized that a supervisory report regarding structural agency failure was omitted in the judgment.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_590/2024: Judgment on the approval of a garage extension outside the building zone
Summary of the Facts
The owners of a plot outside the building zone in the municipality of Schiers applied for the construction of a garage extension to their existing house as a replacement for an already existing garage on another plot, which no longer meets safety requirements after a road widening. The owners of a neighboring plot objected to the construction project. The cantonal office for spatial development approved the construction project with conditions. The lower court dismissed the appeal against this decision, and the Federal Court had to decide on the admissibility of the garage extension.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.