Latest Judgments of the Federal Court
Here you can find the most recent rulings 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_671/2025: Judgment on International Legal Assistance in Tax Matters
Summary of 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 issue 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 indications of confidentiality and limited use of the information. The remaining points of appeal were rejected. A.________ then appealed to the Federal Court on public law matters.
Summary of Considerations
- **E.1:** The Federal Court examines jurisdiction and the prerequisites for admitting the appeal. 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 at stake or the case is of particular significance. - **E.1.1:** A legal question of fundamental importance is affirmed if the decision can serve as guidance for practice. However, the appellant presents a legal question regarding Art. 177 ZPO that is not specific to legal assistance. - **E.1.3:** The lower court examined the principle of availability, the principle of subsidiarity, the principle of specialization, and the anticipated relevance 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 misuse of the information are not sufficiently substantiated, and a qualified violation of fundamental rights is not presented. - **E.1.5:** The Federal Court concludes that neither a legal question of fundamental importance nor a particularly significant case exists.
Summary of Disposition
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 Facts
A.________ was sanctioned by the Regional Public Prosecutor's Office of Berner Jura-Seeland with a penal order dated August 3, 2022, for refusing to provide their name, violations of the Narcotics Act, and insults. Lawyer Julian Burkhalter challenged the valid delivery of penal orders and filed an objection against the penal order. Before the Regional Court of Berner Jura-Seeland, A.________ requested a suspension of 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 admitted.
Summary of Considerations
- **E.1**: An appeal was filed against the decision of the Cantonal Court. The Federal Court examines the prerequisites for admitting the appeal. The appeal is permissible. - **E.2**: The appellant alleges a violation of their right to be heard. The Federal Court states that a minor violation of the right to be heard in the appellate proceedings 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 right to official defense according to Art. 132 StPO is examined. The Federal Court notes that the accused 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 a fine of only 30 daily rates, and no particular factual or legal difficulties are apparent. The Cantonal Court rightly decided that no official defense is required. - **E.4**: The appellant criticizes the partial cost allocation of the previous proceedings. However, the Federal Court confirms that the cost regulation is within the discretion of the lower court and that the remedy of the violation of the right to be heard was appropriately considered.
Summary of Disposition
The appeal and the request for legal aid were dismissed, and the court costs were imposed on the appellant.
7B_1088/2025: Questions of Formal Validity in a Criminal Appeal: Inadmissibility
Summary of 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.________ filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Court through their representative named "Alter Ego" against this decision. The President of the Federal Court instructed 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 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 to remedy such formal defects and point out that failure to comply will lead to the appeal being disregarded. According to Art. 44 para. 2 BGG, a delivery by mail is considered to have taken place if the notification of the collection 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 are set at CHF 500, corresponding to the procedural measures taken so far (Art. 66 para. 1 and 2 BGG).
Summary of Disposition
The appeal was declared inadmissible, and court costs of CHF 500 were imposed on the appellant.
1C_469/2025: Decision on an Appeal Concerning a Building Permit with Conditions
Summary of Facts
The Construction Section of the City of Zurich granted the Foundation D.________ 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 partly upheld by the cantonal authorities, and additional 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 the Building Permit
Summary of 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 complaints, this was confirmed by the Building Appeals 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 construction begins. The complainants 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 Request for Recusal
Summary of 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 requests for recusal against members of the adjudicating body.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_819/2025: Inadmissibility of the Appeal Against the Detention Order
Summary of Facts
A.________ was sentenced to a prison term of 90 days 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.________ opposed the detention order of June 26, 2025, and the execution order of June 30, 2025, while their 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 Facts
The appellant A.________ initiated an administrative investigation in 2018 due to a conflict over plagiarism and academic integrity with a postdoctoral fellow, which was concluded without disciplinary consequences. In October 2024, A.________ filed a criminal complaint against E.________, a legal advisor to the school C.________, with allegations 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 president of a commission, who made statements about it in a British civil trial. The cantonal ministry declared this complaint 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 sufficiently substantiated arguments.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_65/2025: Assessment of an Access Plan Considering Habitat Protection
Summary of Facts
The judgment is based on a dispute regarding 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 protectable habitat. The appellant opposes the impact 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 protectable 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 Facts
A.________ was sentenced by the Regional Court 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 waived expulsion. The Second Criminal Chamber of the Bernese High Court decided on June 17, 2024, on an 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. Simultaneously, 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 Facts
The appellant, 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 appeal inadmissible due to lack of justification. The subject of the dispute concerned an order of the Attorney General of Vaud, who had decided not to initiate 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 Facts
The appellant A.________ was fined by the cantonal tax office of Valais for not submitting his tax return for the tax period 2022 and subsequently was assessed officially. The relevant legal remedies were unsuccessful at both the cantonal level and before the Federal Court, as inadmissibility or lack of substantiation was found. Subsequently, the appellant submitted a request for revision of 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 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 appealed the decision of the Cantonal Court 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 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, citing 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 in the Area of Old Age and Survivors' Insurance (AHV)
Summary of 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 (from May 23, 2025) was considered late by the fund and no decision on the opposition was made, 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 Facts
The Federal Tax Administration (ESTV) received a request for 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 establish 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 of 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 Facts
The father (A.________) and the mother (B.________) dispute the mother's visitation rights regarding 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 establishment between mother and son following a corresponding application by the guardian. The lower courts (District Council and High Court of the Canton of Zurich) confirmed this arrangement and rejected the father's requests for further investigations.
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 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 made 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 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: Non-admittance of an Appeal Concerning Federal Popular Votes
Summary of Facts
The appellant A.________ filed an appeal against the federal popular votes of November 30, 2025, concerning two popular initiatives (Service-citoyen initiative and Initiative for a Future), which challenged both the issuance of voting rights certificates in the Canton of Bern and the design of the ballots. The Cantonal Government of Bern dismissed her voting appeal on November 12, 2025, as far as it was admitted. In a submission to the Federal Court on 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 National Removal and Criminal Procedural Questions
Summary of Facts
A.________ and B.________ were initially convicted by the District Court of Hinwil for, among other things, unlawful detention, kidnapping, and coercion. They appealed the judgments of this court. The High Court of the Canton of Zurich largely upheld the convictions, rejected the objections regarding local jurisdiction and national removal, and slightly adjusted the sentences. A.________ was also sentenced to a five-year national removal 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-admittance of Appeal Due to Unpaid Cost Advance
Summary of Facts
The High Court of the Canton of Bern dismissed an appeal by the appellants regarding official defense by decision of September 3, 2025, as far as it was admitted. The appellants filed an appeal with the Federal Court on October 8, 2025, and were asked 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 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 evaluations, including an expert opinion from SMAB AG. The appeal 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 Non-admittance of Appeals Regarding International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters
Summary of Facts
The A.________ AG, C.________ Limited, and D.________ Limited each filed separate appeals against partial closure orders of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, which ordered the release of documents regarding 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 appeals. The three companies requested the Federal Court to annul the previous decisions and refuse legal assistance.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1F_19/2025: Judgment Regarding Request for Revision
Summary of 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 as well as the improper handling of his then submission and the returned original attachments. Furthermore, he criticized that a supervisory report regarding structural governmental failure was omitted in the judgment.
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 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 of land, 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 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.