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 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 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 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 mutual assistance. A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Administrative Court, which partially upheld the complaint and instructed the ESTV to provide indications of confidentiality and limited use of the information. The other complaints were dismissed. A.________ then appealed to the Federal Court in matters of public law.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The Federal Court examines jurisdiction and the prerequisites for admissibility. According to Art. 84a BGG, a complaint in the area of international mutual assistance in tax matters is only admissible 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 that is not specific to mutual assistance. - **E.1.3:** The lower court thoroughly examined the principles of availability, subsidiarity, specialty, and the anticipated 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 there is neither a legal question of fundamental importance nor a particularly significant case.
Summary of the Disposition
The Federal Court did not enter into the complaint and imposed court costs on the complainant. No party compensations were granted.
7B_171/2025: Judgment on official defense and legal hearing
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 provide their name, violations of the Narcotics Act, and insult. Lawyer Julian Burkhalter criticized the valid service of penalty orders and appealed against the penalty order. Before the Regional Court Berner Jura-Seeland, A.________ requested the suspension of the proceedings PEN 24 301 and the appointment of lawyer Burkhalter as official defense, which was denied. The Cantonal Court of Bern found a violation of the right to a legal hearing by the Regional Court Berner Jura-Seeland, but rejected the complaint to the extent that 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 prerequisites for entry into the complaint. The complaint is admissible. - **E.2**: The complainant alleges a violation of their right to a legal hearing. The Federal Court states that a non-serious violation of the right to be heard in the appeal process can be cured if the appellate authority reviews the facts and legal situation freely. The cure was rightly made by the Cantonal Court. - **E.3**: The right to an official defense under Art. 132 StPO is examined. The Federal Court states that the criminal case does not constitute a minor case if a prison sentence of more than 4 months or a fine of more than 120 daily rates is to be expected. In this 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 complainant criticizes the partial allocation of costs in the lower court proceedings. However, the Federal Court confirms that the cost regulation lies within the discretion of the lower court and that the cure of the violation of the right to be heard was adequately taken into account.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint as well as the request for legal aid were rejected, and the court costs were imposed on the complainant.
7B_1088/2025: Questions of formal validity in a criminal appeal: Inadmissibility
Summary of the Facts
The 2nd Chamber of the Criminal Court of the Bern High Court did not enter into the complaint 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 their representative named "Alter Ego," filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Court against this decision. The President of the Federal Court instructed the complainant, by means of two separately sent orders, to submit a signed copy of the complaint, as otherwise, it would not be entered, 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 document must be submitted. The President may set a deadline to remedy such formal deficiencies and indicate 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 collection of the document is ignored within 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, corresponding to the measures taken so far (Art. 66 para. 1 and 2 BGG).
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint was declared inadmissible, and the court costs of CHF 500 were imposed on the complainant.
1C_469/2025: Decision on a complaint 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 new building with 56 apartments, a kindergarten, and three parking spaces. The permit was supplemented with conditions that were contested 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 a complaint with the Federal Court, challenging the judgment of the Administrative Court and the conditions.
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 complainant a building permit on November 16, 2021, for four multi-family houses as a site development along with a collective garage. Following 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 appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5F_69/2025: Judgment concerning a second request for revision and recusal request
Summary of the Facts
The applicant 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 applicant submitted various recusal requests against members of the court.
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 of the Geneva prosecutor on November 6, 2020, particularly for illegal residence. After the execution of the sentence was initiated by the cantonal authorities, A.________ opposed the detention order of June 26, 2025, and the execution order of June 30, 2025, with their cantonal legal remedy being declared inadmissible by the Chambre pénale de recours. The complainant then filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_849/2025: Inadmissibility of the complaint due to insufficient reasoning in the criminal procedure
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ initiated an administrative investigation in 2018 due to a conflict over plagiarism and academic integrity with a postdoctoral researcher, which concluded without disciplinary consequences. In October 2024, A.________ filed a criminal complaint against E.________, a legal advisor to the school C.________, with accusations such as violation of official secrecy, unworthy representation of interests, and defamation, concerning the transmission of information from the administrative investigation to F.________, a former committee president who made statements about it in a British civil proceeding. The cantonal ministry deemed 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 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 over the approval of a development plan "Tannenweg" in the municipality of Obersiggenthal, which plans to widen an existing road and runs through a potentially protected habitat. The complainant opposes the project's impact 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.
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 charges, 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 waived expulsion. The second criminal chamber of the Bern High Court decided on June 17, 2024, upon appeal by the prosecutor, 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. A revision request was also submitted, which was rejected by the 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Bern High Court on November 20, 2024.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_1107/2025: Inadmissibility of a complaint due to insufficient reasoning
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, A.________, approached 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 complaint inadmissible due to lack of reasoning. The matter involved a decision of the Attorney General of Vaud, who had decided not to initiate her criminal complaint. The Federal Court dismissed the complaint as it did not meet the requirements for a legally sufficient reasoning.
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 failing to submit his tax return for the 2022 tax period 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 found. Consequently, the complainant submitted a revision request 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 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 for the wife. The husband appealed the decision of the Cantonal Court of Obwalden, which did not recognize his objections. The complaint was then escalated to the Federal Court.
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 reasoning.
Summary of the Facts
The complaint concerns the refusal of the electronic monitoring regime within the framework of the enforcement of a prison sentence. The complainant has been convicted multiple times for various offenses. The lower court rejected the monitoring regime as there was a high risk of recidivism.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_622/2025: Decision on the admissibility of the complaint 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 compensation in the amount of CHF 69,318.55. He claimed to have been merely a "straw man" and had no actual influence on the company. After his opposition (dated May 23, 2025) was considered late by the fund and no decision on the opposition was made, the cantonal court declared the complaint premature and consequently inadmissible. The matter was referred back to the fund for it to decide on the admissibility of the opposition. A.________ filed a complaint 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 regarding the Cypriot company A.________. The issue is to clarify interest and dividend income from Ukrainian companies to A.________ and to determine the identity of the beneficial owner. A.________ opposed the provision of mutual assistance. The Federal Administrative Court partially upheld their complaint, allowed the mutual assistance, but with indications 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 on the arrangement 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 concerning their ten-year-old son, C.________, who lives with the father. In the past, the implementation of supervised visitation 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 High Court of the Canton of Zurich) confirmed this arrangement and dismissed the father's requests for further investigations. The father demanded before the Federal Court the annulment of the mother's visitation rights, unchanged continuation of the guardianship, and further evidence collection.
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 concluded by judgment on July 30, 2025. The request was filed after the cost advance was not paid 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.________ requested the Federal Court to revise its judgment 7B_875/2025 of October 21, 2025. Previously, the Federal Court had not entered into the complaint 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 entry into 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), challenging both the issuance of voting rights certificates in the Canton of Bern and the design of the ballots. The government of the Canton of Bern dismissed her voting complaint on November 12, 2025, to the extent it was admissible. In a submission dated November 24, 2025, to the Federal Court, the complainant requested the annulment of the lower court 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 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 High Court of the Canton of Zurich largely confirmed the convictions, rejected the objections regarding local jurisdiction and expulsion, and slightly adjusted the sentences. A.________ was additionally sentenced to a five-year expulsion with registration in the Schengen Information System (SIS). Both complainants filed criminal complaints with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_1068/2025: Official defense; no entry into the complaint due to unpaid cost advance
Summary of the Facts
The High Court of the Canton of Bern dismissed a complaint regarding official defense on September 3, 2025, to the extent it was admissible. The complainants filed a complaint with the Federal Court on October 8, 2025, and were requested to pay a cost advance. 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 an expert opinion from SMAB AG. The complaint filed against this was dismissed by the Social Insurance 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 entry into 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 final orders of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, which ordered the handover of documents related to bank accounts to Ukraine. These legal assistance measures were requested in connection with a criminal procedure 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.
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 improper handling of his previous submission and the returned original attachments. Additionally, he criticized that a supervisory report regarding structural governmental failure was excluded 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 of land 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 the 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 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.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.