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 further 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 receive the latest judgments tailored to your areas of law.
2C_671/2025: Judgment on International Legal Assistance in Tax Matters
Summary of the Facts
The Ukrainian tax authority requested 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). The case involved 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 assistance. A.________ appealed to the Federal Administrative Court, which partially upheld the appeal and instructed the ESTV to include confidentiality and limited use clauses regarding the information. The remaining appeal points were dismissed. 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 admissibility. According to Art. 84a BGG, an appeal in the area of international legal assistance in tax matters is only permissible if a legal question of fundamental importance is raised 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 regarding Art. 177 ZPO that is not specific to administrative assistance. - **E.1.3:** The lower court thoroughly examined the availability principle, subsidiarity principle, specialty principle, and the likely significance and found no violations of these principles. The appeal does not raise any new legal questions. - **E.1.4:** A particularly significant case presupposes 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 established. - **E.1.5:** The Federal Court finds that there is neither a legal question of fundamental importance nor a particularly significant case.
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Court did not admit the appeal and imposed court costs on the appellant. 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 Bern Jura-Seeland with a penal order dated August 3, 2022, for refusal to provide his name, violations of the narcotics law, and insult. Attorney Julian Burkhalter criticized the valid service of penal orders and appealed against the penal order. Before the Regional Court of Bern Jura-Seeland, A.________ requested the suspension of the procedure PEN 24 301 and the appointment of Attorney 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 Bern Jura-Seeland but dismissed the appeal to the extent it was admitted.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1**: An appeal was filed against the decision of the Cantonal Court in criminal matters. The Federal Court examines the prerequisites for admitting the appeal. The appeal is permissible. - **E.2**: The appellant claims 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 procedure can be remedied when the appellate instance reviews the factual and legal situation freely. The remedy was rightly performed by the Cantonal Court. - **E.3**: The claim for official defense according to Art. 132 StPO is examined. The Federal Court states that the accused 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, a fine of only 30 daily rates is to be imposed, and no particular factual or legal difficulties are evident. The Cantonal Court rightly decided that no official defense is required. - **E.4**: The appellant criticizes the partial costs assignment of the lower court proceedings. 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 appeal as well as the request for free legal aid were dismissed, and the court costs were imposed on the appellant.
7B_1088/2025: Questions of Formal Validity in a Criminal Law Appeal: Inadmissibility
Summary of the Facts
The 2nd Chamber of the Criminal Court of the Bernese High Court did not admit the appeal of 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, otherwise it would not be admitted, but the appellant did not respond.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** According to Art. 42 para. 5 BGG (Federal Court Act), a signed appeal must be submitted. The President can set a deadline to remedy such formal deficiencies 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 of the pickup of the document is ignored within the seven-day period. Here, two such deliveries were made 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, in accordance with the procedural measures taken so far (Art. 66 para. 1 and 2 BGG).
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal was declared inadmissible, and the court costs amounting to CHF 500 were imposed on the appellant.
1C_469/2025: Decision on an Appeal Regarding a Building Permit with Conditions
Summary of the Facts
The Building 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 contested by affected neighbors. Subsequently, the appeals were partially upheld by the cantonal authorities, and additional conditions were added to the permit. The appellants 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 the Building Permit
Summary of the Facts
The Building Authority of Meilen granted a respondent a building permit on November 16, 2021, for four multi-family houses as a site development along with a collective garage. Following appeals, 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 appellants then turned 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 Recusal Request
Summary of the Facts
The petitioner requested the revision of the Federal Court decision (5F_47/2025) of October 7, 2025, which had previously dismissed a renewed request for revision against the judgment 5A_566/2025 of July 18, 2025. Additionally, the petitioner submitted various recusal requests against members of the adjudicating panel.
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 90 days of imprisonment by a penal order from the Geneva Public Prosecutor on November 6, 2020, primarily for illegal residence. After the execution 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, with his cantonal legal remedy being 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 regarding a conflict over 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, concerning 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 proceeding. The cantonal ministry declared this complaint to be inadmissible. The cantonal appeals chamber of the Canton of Vaud dismissed the appeal filed by A.________ on June 2, 2025, due to lack of substantiated 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 is based on a dispute regarding the approval of a development plan "Tannenweg" in the municipality of Obersiggenthal, which envisages the widening of an existing road and passes through a potentially protectable habitat. The appellant opposes the project's impact 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 worthy habitats are central. The lower courts assessed the impacts 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 High Court decided on June 17, 2024, upon appeal by the public prosecutor to expel A.________ and register this measure in the Schengen Information System (SIS). A.________ then filed an appeal with the Federal Court against the expulsion. In parallel, a request for revision was submitted, which the second criminal chamber of the Bernese High 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.________, appealed to the Federal Court against a decision of the Chambre des recours pénale of the Cantonal Tribunal of Vaud dated August 25, 2025, which declared her cantonal appeal inadmissible due to lack of justification. The subject matter concerned a ruling of the Attorney General of Vaud, who had decided not to pursue her criminal complaint. The Federal Court dismissed the appeal as it did not meet the requirements for a legally sufficient 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 not submitting his tax return for the tax period 2022 and 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 determined 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. 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 advance 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 appealed against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Obwalden, which did not recognize his objections. The appeal was then forwarded 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 in the context of the enforcement of a prison sentence. The appellant has been convicted multiple times for various offenses. The lower court rejected the monitoring regime due to a high risk of recidivism.
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 from 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 compensation in the amount of CHF 69,318.55. He claimed to have only been a "straw man" and had no actual influence on the company. After his opposition (dated May 23, 2025) was deemed 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 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 Legal Assistance in Tax Matters
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Tax Administration (ESTV) received a request for legal assistance from the State Tax Service of Ukraine for information about the Cypriot company A.________. The issue is to clarify interest and dividend income from Ukrainian companies to A.________ and to ascertain the identity of the beneficial owner. A.________ opposed the provision of assistance. The Federal Administrative Court partially upheld her appeal, allowed the assistance but with indications for 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 on the Design of Visitation Rights and Guardianship
Summary of the Facts
The father (A.________) and the mother (B.________) are disputing the visitation rights of the mother concerning their ten-year-old son, C.________, who lives with the father. In the past, the implementation of accompanied visitation contacts 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 High Court of the Canton of Zurich) confirmed this arrangement and dismissed the father's requests for further investigations. The father sought to have the mother's visitation rights revoked, to continue the guardianship unchanged, and for further evidence to be gathered before the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8F_16/2025: Judgment Regarding Request for Restoration of Deadline in the Area of Disability Insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________ requested the restoration of the deadline for legal remedies and thus the resumption of a procedure that had been concluded with a judgment dated July 30, 2025. The request was made after the cost advance was not paid even within an extended deadline.
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 to revise its judgment 7B_875/2025 of October 21, 2025. Previously, the Federal Court had not admitted the appeal against a decision of the High Court of the Canton of Graubünden.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_700/2025: No Admission of an Appeal Regarding Federal Popular Votes
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed an appeal against the federal popular votes of November 30, 2025, regarding two popular initiatives (Service-citoyen Initiative and Initiative for a Future), which were directed both against the issuance of voting rights certificates in the Canton of Bern and against the design of the ballots. The Government Council of the Canton of Bern dismissed her voting appeal on November 12, 2025, to the extent it was admitted. In a submission dated November 24, 2025, to the Federal Court, 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 the judgments of this court. The High Court of the Canton of Zurich largely confirmed the convictions, dismissed the objections regarding 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; No Admission of Appeal Due to Non-Payment of Cost Advance
Summary of the Facts
The High Court of the Canton of Bern dismissed an appeal by the appellants regarding official defense with a decision dated September 3, 2025, to the extent it was admitted. The appellants filed an appeal with the Federal Court on October 8, 2025, and were requested to pay a cost advance. After the expiration of the granted deadline, 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 filed against this was dismissed by the Social Security Court of the Canton of Zurich and ultimately by the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_696/2025: Agreement and No Admission of Appeals Regarding International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ AG, C.________ Limited, and D.________ Limited separately filed appeals against partial closure orders of the Federal Prosecutor's Office, which ordered the disclosure of documents related to bank accounts to Ukraine. These 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 decisions and to refuse 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.________ filed a request for revision against the judgment of the Federal Court (1C_440/2025 dated August 26, 2025). He criticized the lack of conduct of the exchange of written submissions and the improper handling of his previous submission and the returned original attachments. Moreover, he criticized that a supervisory report regarding structural failures of the authorities had been 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 residence 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 filed an objection against the construction project. The cantonal office for spatial development approved the construction plan 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.