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 Lexplorer portal. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest judgments tailored to your areas of law.
2C_671/2025: Judgment on International Mutual Assistance in Tax Matters
Summary of the Facts
The Ukrainian tax authority requested mutual assistance from the Swiss 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). This concerned interest and dividend income that 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.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Administrative Court, which partially upheld the complaint and instructed the ESTV to include confidentiality and limited use notices regarding the information. The other points of complaint were dismissed. A.________ then filed a complaint in public law matters with the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The Federal Court examines jurisdiction and the conditions for admissibility. According to Art. 84a BGG, a complaint in the area 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 complainant raises a legal question regarding Art. 177 ZPO, which is not specific to mutual assistance. - **E.1.3:** The lower court thoroughly examined the availability principle, the subsidiarity principle, the specialty principle, and the expected relevance and found no violation of these principles. The complaint 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 misuse of 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 complaint and imposed court costs on the complainant. No party compensation was granted.
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 penalty order dated August 3, 2022, for refusal to disclose his name, violations of the Narcotics Act, and insult. Attorney Julian Burkhalter criticized the valid delivery of penalty orders and filed an objection against the penalty order. Before the Regional Court of Berner Jura-Seeland, A.________ requested the suspension of proceedings PEN 24 301 and the appointment of attorney Burkhalter as an official defense lawyer, 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 rejected the complaint to the extent it was addressed.
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 conditions for admitting the complaint. The complaint is admissible. - **E.2**: The complainant alleges a violation of his right to be heard. The Federal Court explains that a non-serious violation of the right to be heard in the appeal process can be remedied if the appellate authority freely reviews the facts and law. The remedy was rightly applied by the Cantonal Court. - **E.3**: The right to official defense according to Art. 132 StPO is examined. The Federal Court states that the criminal case does not represent 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 a fine of only 30 daily rates, and no particular factual or legal difficulties are evident. The Cantonal Court rightly decided that no official defense is required. - **E.4**: The complainant criticizes the partial cost allocation of the proceedings in the lower court. However, the Federal Court confirms that the cost arrangement lies within the discretion of the lower court and the remedy of the violation of the right to be heard was appropriately taken into account.
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaint and the request for free legal aid were dismissed, and the court costs were imposed on the complainant.
7B_1088/2025: Issues of Formal Validity in a Criminal Law Complaint: Inadmissibility
Summary of the Facts
The 2nd Chamber of the Criminal Court of the Bernese Oberland did not admit the complaint 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 complaint with the Federal Court against this decision. The President of the Federal Court instructed the complainant via two separately sent orders to submit a signed copy of the complaint; otherwise, it would not be considered, but the complainant did not respond.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** According to Art. 42 para. 5 BGG (Federal Court Act), a signed complaint must be submitted. The President may set a deadline for remedying such formal defects and point out that failure to comply will result in the appeal being disregarded. According to Art. 44 para. 2 BGG, a delivery by post is considered to have occurred if the notification for the collection of the document is ignored during the seven-day period. Here, two such deliveries were made without the complainant responding. - **E.1.2:** The failure to submit a signed complaint within the set deadline leads to the obvious inadmissibility of the complaint (Art. 108 para. 1 lit. a BGG). - **E.2:** The complainant bears the costs of the proceedings, which were set at CHF 500, according to the measures taken so far (Art. 66 para. 1 and 2 BGG).
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaint was declared inadmissible, and court costs of CHF 500 were imposed on the complainant.
1C_469/2025: Decision on a Complaint Regarding Building Permit with Conditions
Summary of the Facts
The Building Section of the City of Zurich granted the Foundation D.________ a building permit for a replacement building with 56 apartments, a kindergarten, and three parking spaces. The permit was supplemented by conditions challenged by affected neighbors. Subsequently, the complaints were partially upheld by the cantonal authorities, and additional conditions were added to the permit. The complainants then filed a complaint with the Federal Court, contesting the judgment of the Administrative Court as well as the conditions.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_512/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint Against Building Permit
Summary of the Facts
The Building Authority of Meilen granted a complaint opponent a building permit on November 16, 2021, for four multi-family houses as a site development along with a shared garage. Following complaints, this was confirmed by the Building Appeal Court of the Canton of Zurich and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich, but supplemented with additional conditions that must be fulfilled before the start of construction. The complainants opposed this before the Federal Court.
The 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) of October 7, 2025, which had previously rejected a renewed request for revision against the judgment 5A_566/2025 of July 18, 2025. Additionally, the applicant submitted various requests for recusal against members of the panel.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_819/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint Against Detention Order
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was sentenced to a prison term of 90 days by a penalty order from the Geneva Public Prosecutor's Office on November 6, 2020, especially for illegal stay. After the execution of the sentence was initiated by the cantonal authorities, A.________ contested 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 complainant then filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Court.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_849/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint Due to Insufficient Justification in Criminal Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ initiated an administrative investigation in 2018 due to a conflict over plagiarism and academic integrity with a postdoc, which was concluded without disciplinary consequences. In October 2024, A.________ filed a criminal complaint against E.________, a legal advisor of the school C.________, with accusations such as violation of official secrecy, unworthy representation of interests, and defamation regarding the disclosure 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 inadmissible. The cantonal complaint chamber of the Canton of Vaud rejected the appeal filed by A.________ on June 2, 2025, due to lack of substantively presented arguments.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_65/2025: Assessment of an Access Plan Considering Habitat Protection
Summary of the Facts
The judgment is based on a dispute over the approval of an access plan "Tannenweg" in the municipality of Obersiggenthal, which provides for the widening of an existing road and runs through a potentially protected habitat. The complainant opposes the project's impacts on this habitat, particularly on the population of the midwife toad. Various cantonal and federal legal provisions regarding nature and homeland protection and the preservation of protected habitats are central. The lower courts assessed the impacts as minor and approved the project.
The 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 term of 7 months and 10 daily rates. The court also ordered outpatient psychiatric care and refrained from expulsion. The second criminal chamber of the Bernese Oberland Court decided on June 17, 2024, on the appeal of 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 was rejected by the 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Bernese Oberland Court on November 20, 2024.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1107/2025: Inadmissibility of a Complaint Due to Insufficient Justification
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, A.________, approached the Federal Court against a decision of the Chambre des recours pénale of the Cantonal Court of Vaud from August 25, 2025, which declared her cantonal complaint inadmissible due to lack of justification. The subject of the dispute was an order from the Attorney General of Vaud, who decided not to proceed with her criminal complaint. The Federal Court dismissed the complaint as it did not meet the requirements for a legally sufficient justification.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_475/2025: Dismissal of the Complaint Due to Inadmissibility
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ was initially fined by the cantonal tax office of Valais for not submitting his tax return for the assessment period 2022 and was subsequently assessed officially. 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 complainant submitted a request for revision for cantonal and federal court decisions, which was also declared inadmissible as no revision-relevant facts or evidence were presented.
The 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. Following a request from 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 for the wife. The husband filed a complaint against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Obwalden, which did not recognize his objections. The complaint was subsequently escalated to the Federal Court.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1049/2025: Complaint Against the Refusal of the Electronic Monitoring Regime and its Inadmissibility Due to Insufficient Justification.
Summary of the Facts
The complaint concerns the refusal of the electronic monitoring regime in the context of the enforcement of a prison sentence. The complainant was convicted multiple times for various offenses. The lower court rejected the monitoring regime on the grounds that there was a high risk of recidivism.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_622/2025: Decision on the Question of the Admissibility of the Complaint Regarding a Dispute in the Field of Old Age and Survivors' Insurance (AHV)
Summary of the Facts
A.________, former organ of the company B.________ SA, was requested by the Caisse de compensation des entrepreneurs according to Art. 52 LAVS to pay compensation of CHF 69,318.55. He claimed to have merely been a "straw man" and to have had no real influence on the company. After his opposition (dated May 23, 2025) was regarded by the fund as late and no decision was made about the opposition, the cantonal court declared the complaint premature and therefore inadmissible. The matter was referred back to the fund to decide on the admissibility of the opposition. A.________ filed a complaint against this decision with the Federal Court.
The 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 Swiss 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 clarifying 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 complaint, allowed the mutual assistance but with confidentiality notices and restrictions on the use of the information by the requesting authority.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_983/2025: Judgment on the Design of Visitation Rights and Guardianship
Summary of the Facts
The father (A.________) and the mother (B.________) are in dispute over the mother's visitation rights regarding their ten-year-old son, C.________, who lives with the father. In the past, the implementation of supervised visit contacts failed due to the mother's health condition and other obstacles. The KESB ordered a gradual contact build-up between mother and son following a corresponding request from the guardian. The lower courts (District Council and Cantonal Court of Zurich) confirmed this arrangement and rejected the father's requests for further investigations. The father demanded before the Federal Court the revocation of the mother's visitation rights, unchanged continuation of the guardianship, and further evidence collection.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8F_16/2025: Judgment Regarding a 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 the judgment of July 30, 2025. The request was made after the cost advance was not paid even within a granted extension period.
The 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.________ requested the Federal Court for the revision of its judgment 7B_875/2025 from October 21, 2025. Previously, the Federal Court had not admitted the complaint against a decision of the Cantonal Court of Graubünden.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_700/2025: Non-Admittance of a Complaint Regarding Federal Referendums
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a complaint against the federal referendums of November 30, 2025, regarding two popular initiatives (Citizen Service Initiative and Initiative for a Future), which were directed against both the issuance of voting rights certificates in the Canton of Bern and the design of the ballot papers. The Government of the Canton of Bern dismissed her voting complaint on November 12, 2025, to the extent it was addressed. In a submission to the Federal Court on November 24, 2025, the complainant requested the annulment of the previous decision and the declaration of the invalidity of both votes.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1340/2024: Judgment on Expulsion and Criminal Procedural Issues
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 convictions, rejected objections regarding local jurisdiction and expulsion, and slightly adjusted the sentences. A.________ was also sentenced to a five-year expulsion with publication in the Schengen Information System (SIS). Both complainants filed complaints in criminal matters with the Federal Court.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1068/2025: Official Defense; Non-Admittance of Complaint Due to Non-Payment of Cost Advance
Summary of the Facts
The Cantonal Court of Bern rejected a complaint from the complainants regarding official defense with a decision dated September 3, 2025, to the extent it was addressed. The complainants filed a complaint with the Federal Court on October 8, 2025, and were instructed to make a cost advance. After the granted extension period expired, they did not comply with this request.
The 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 examinations, including an expert opinion from SMAB AG. The complaint filed against this was dismissed by the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich and finally by the Federal Court.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_696/2025: Agreement and Non-Admittance of Complaints Regarding International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ AG, C.________ Limited, and D.________ Limited separately filed complaints against partial termination orders of 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 case against B.________ in Ukraine. The Federal Criminal Court dismissed the complaints. The three companies requested the Federal Court to annul the previous decisions and to refuse legal assistance.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1F_19/2025: Judgment Regarding the Request for Revision
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a request for revision against the judgment of the Federal Court (1C_440/2025 of August 26, 2025). He criticized the lack of a written exchange and the improper handling of his previous submission and the returned original attachments. Furthermore, he pointed out that a supervisory report regarding structural government failure had been omitted in the judgment.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_590/2024: Judgment Regarding the Approval of a Garage Extension Outside the Building Zone
Summary of the Facts
The owners of a plot of land outside the building zone in the municipality of Schiers requested the construction of a garage extension to their existing residential house as a replacement for an already existing garage on another plot, which no longer met safety requirements following a road widening. The owners of a neighboring plot filed an objection against the construction project. The cantonal office for spatial development approved the construction project with conditions. The lower court dismissed the complaint against this decision, and the Federal Court had to decide on the admissibility of the garage extension.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.