Latest Rulings of the Federal Court

Summary of the Facts

The Federal Court deals with the termination of the public law employment relationship of A.________ by the municipal council of the city of Neuchâtel due to a long-term illness-related inability to work. A.________, who worked as a curator at the Museum of Ethnography, claimed that the termination was abusive and that his inability to work was caused by bullying. The municipal council initially announced the termination as of the end of 2024, but the lower court extended the termination date to March 31, 2025.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ received temporary disability pensions from the IV office of the canton of Zurich after an accident, which were later revoked. The dispute concerns the revocation of the pensions from the end of 2019 and the reasonableness of the appellant's self-integration into the labor market. Lower court judgments have assessed this differently.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ was convicted in the second instance by the Court of Justice of the canton of Bern for attempted coercion and sentenced to a conditional fine and a connection penalty. He appealed against the judgment and requested acquittal or referral back to the lower court. The background of the offense is a letter in which he urged an employee to withdraw his objection to a construction project, while implicitly suggesting possible negative consequences for his employment relationship.

Summary of the Facts

The father (A.________) filed a revision request against a judgment of the Federal Court from March 11, 2025 (5A_899/2024), which declared his previous appeal inadmissible. The original proceedings concerned the lifting of the suspensive effect of a cantonal decision related to a parental dispute over child D.________.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court on January 3, 2025, against a decision of the Court of Justice of the canton of Geneva from November 12, 2024. At the same time, he requested free legal aid. With a decision dated February 4, 2025, the request was denied, and he was given a deadline of 14 days to pay a cost advance of 800 CHF. This deadline was last extended on March 7, 2025, and was non-extendable until March 18, 2025, with a warning of the inadmissibility of the legal remedy in case of non-payment.

Summary of the Facts

The appellant A.________ filed a complaint with the president of the cantonal criminal appeals authority in Neuchâtel against an order of the cantonal public prosecutor. However, this was dismissed due to non-treatment. Subsequently, he filed a complaint with the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The Federal Court examines the appeal of two taxpayers (A.________ and B.________) who did not declare assets in Portugal in their tax returns. The cantonal tax authorities in the canton of Fribourg received hints regarding accounts and life insurance policies that could belong to taxable assets as part of international information exchange. The taxpayers disputed this but did not provide sufficient evidence. The tax assessment estimated the assets considering the lack of cooperation and imposed recovery claims as well as a penalty for tax evasion.

Summary of the Facts

The A.________ SA, a joint-stock company without a management body and without a valid legal seat, was requested by the commercial register office of the canton of Ticino to restore the legal conditions. After a failed deadline, the company was dissolved and put into liquidation by the sole judge. An appeal and a request for an extension of the deadline in the cantonal proceedings were denied. The company applied to the Federal Court for a reset of the deadline and a new opportunity to remedy the organizational deficiencies.

Summary of the Facts

The appellant, A.________ AG, filed a complaint on January 10, 2025, in criminal matters against a decision of the cantonal court of Lucerne from December 9, 2024, regarding disqualification. Evidence supplements were submitted, but the necessary cost advance was not paid despite the deadline and additional period.

Summary of the Facts

The company A. conducted its business activities in the canton of Geneva and sold a property in the canton of Valais in the form of condominium ownership with a profit of 12,400,000 francs. To reinvest the profit, a provision for replacement was created, which was partially dissolved in the 2016 financial year (amount: 8,267,000 francs). Both the canton of Valais and the canton of Geneva claimed the right to taxation for this dissolved amount.

Summary of the Facts

The Federal Court assesses two appeals regarding the judgment of the Administrative Court of Aargau concerning state and municipal taxes. The case concerns the tax period 2013 of A.________ AG and the question of whether tax-relevant hidden profit distributions occurred. This particularly concerns the sale of a property below market value and the subsequent financial advantages granted to related parties.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ was employed by various employers and pension institutions, and suffered repeated psychotic decompensations and severe depressive episodes, requiring partial inpatient treatment. After several pension institutions denied their obligation to perform, A.________ sued before the social insurance court of the canton of Zurich, which dismissed the case. Before the Federal Court, he requested a declaration of the performance obligation, particularly of the BVK personnel pension fund of the canton of Zurich. The dispute was whether there is a temporal and material connection between the inability to work and the later disability.

Summary of the Facts

The appellant, A.________, was stopped by the police in Lausanne on April 5, 2024, where his vehicle exhibited technical modifications. A technical report from the cantonal road traffic office (SAN) revealed several non-compliant modifications to the vehicle, particularly in the exhaust system. The SAN ordered the immediate suspension of the vehicle, revocation of the registration, and confiscation and destruction of the modified vehicle parts. The cantonal court of the canton of Vaud confirmed these measures, after which A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Court against a judgment of the Criminal Chamber of the cantonal court of Neuchâtel. This had declared the withdrawal of her cantonal appeal as she had been absent from the appeal hearing without sufficient justification. It was found that a submitted medical certificate did not sufficiently excuse her absence from the appeal hearing.

Summary of the Facts

In the canton of Vaud, a guardianship of representation and administration was ordered for A.________, who is under guardianship due to health impairments. Various court proceedings and medical expert reports confirmed her limited capacity to make judgments regarding personal and financial matters. Her lawyer, despite the termination of his mandate by the curator, tried several times to represent her in court, which ultimately led to his representation authority being questioned.

Summary of the Facts

B.________ AG was deleted from the commercial register in 2005 and re-registered in 2022. In the context of the liquidation and the adjustment of the statutes, A.________, a shareholder, applied for the registration of 37 registered shares in the share register. The lower courts rejected his application due to lack of evidence.

Summary of the Facts

The foundation A.________ and the C.________ Foundation, the latter being merged with the former from October 2024, made various purchases and sales of shares in B.________ Holding AG between 2011 and 2016 as part of two employee participation plans. The Federal Tax Administration (ESTV) qualified the foundations as securities dealers and levied sales taxes. The foundation A.________ and its legal successor disputed the tax.

Summary of the Facts

The Hinwil District Court convicted the appellant for various crimes, including money laundering and violations of the weapons law, to a prison sentence of 36 months, a fine, and an expulsion for seven years with a SIS announcement. The Court of Appeal of the canton of Zurich confirmed the expulsion and the SIS announcement. The appellant then filed a complaint with the Federal Court regarding these points.

Summary of the Facts

The appellant A.________ had first applied for benefits from the disability insurance in June 2019, which were rejected due to a disability degree of 0%. A later application for cost coverage for an electric wheelchair was also denied. In June 2023, she submitted a new application to the IV office in Bern, based on a claimed deterioration in her health condition. The IV office did not process the application due to lack of credible evidence of a significant change. The Administrative Court of the canton of Bern dismissed the appeal against this.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ appealed against the decision of the Zurich Supreme Court, which commissioned a new expert assessment for the involuntary fixation and medication during a protective deprivation of liberty. The appellant complains of an alleged denial of rights, as the lower court did not rely solely on the existing expert report by Dr. med. Platz, contrary to the referral guidelines of the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ is suspected of having repeatedly stabbed her partner with a knife during a domestic dispute on September 18, 2024. Investigations are underway for attempted serious bodily injury, among other charges. Pre-trial detention was ordered by the coercive measures court until December 18, 2024, and later extended. The Federal Court examines the legality of the further extension of pre-trial detention, which was confirmed by the Court of Appeal of the canton of Aargau.

Summary of the Facts

The A.________ AG appealed against a judgment of the Administrative Court of the canton of Zug, which had not considered it due to the late submission of the legal remedy. The Administrative Court had established that the legal remedy period of 30 days began with the delivery of the objection decision on December 7, 2024, and ended on January 6, 2025. However, the appellant submitted the appeals only on January 8, 2025. In the proceedings before the Federal Court, the appellant claimed the nullity of the lower court's judgment and the observance of a standstill period.

Summary of the Facts

The appellant was convicted by a juvenile court for various offenses and was sentenced to one month of probation. After the deadline for the appeal registration had expired, he requested its restoration, claiming he had fallen ill while traveling abroad. His request and subsequent appeal were dismissed by the cantonal authorities.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ drove a passenger car on December 16, 2022, after consuming alcohol. Measurements showed a breath alcohol concentration of 0.4 mg/l, making him unfit to drive according to regulations. He was convicted by the Zurich Court of Appeal for driving in an unfit state and received a conditional fine. A.________ appealed to the Federal Court and requested acquittal or a new assessment of the judgment.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ was convicted by the District Court of Uster for illegal residence under Art. 115 Abs. 1 lit. b AIG and sentenced to a fine of 120 daily rates of CHF 10 each. The Court of Appeal of the canton of Zurich confirmed the conviction but refrained from imposing a penalty based on the EU Return Directive. The Zurich Public Prosecutor's Office appealed to the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The appellant A.________ was convicted by the Court of Appeal of the canton of Zurich for violating the lawyer monopoly according to § 40 Abs. 1 AnwG/ZH and fined CHF 2,000, as he acted as a legal advisor for a third party without entry in a cantonal lawyer register. He was acquitted of the charge of impersonating the professional title.

Summary of the Facts

The German national A.________ applied for asylum in Switzerland, which was rejected by the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM), and expulsion and its enforcement were ordered. The Federal Administrative Court confirmed this decision. A.________ appealed to the Federal Court against the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court without making specific requests.

Summary of the Facts

The appellant, A.________, contested an objection decision of the Swiss Accident Insurance Institute (Suva), which refused a performance obligation for a reported relapse to previously insured incidents. The Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft confirmed this decision. The appellant filed a complaint with the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

A.________, a retired entrepreneur born in 1945, was found during a police control test on February 17, 2023, with a breath alcohol concentration of 0.83 mg/l. The responsible cantonal authority then indefinitely revoked his driving license, required a medical assessment, and at least six months of alcohol-free psychological support. After confirmation by the cantonal administrative court, A.________ appealed the decision to the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The parties, both born in 1963, married in 1995 and are parents of three now-adult children. The wife has been running a gynecological practice since 2000, which she shared with her husband until 2019. The husband has been unable to work in healthcare since 2019 due to professional and criminal issues and currently has no employment. In July 2022, the wife requested protective measures for the marital community, including a restraining and approach prohibition order, as well as financial arrangements. The husband requested a maintenance payment of CHF 10,050 per month, which was rejected by the cantonal courts.

Summary of the Facts

The appellant A.________ requested cost coverage for a master's degree to become a secondary school teacher after he had previously been granted this for a bachelor's degree. The IV office refused the cost coverage, as did the cantonal court. The subject of the dispute is the equivalence of employment opportunities in his original profession as a cook compared to the desired profession as a secondary school teacher.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ was convicted by the District Court of Dietikon on July 21, 2022, for simple and attempted serious bodily injury. He filed an appeal, and the public prosecutor filed a follow-up appeal. Neither A.________ nor his official defender appeared for the appeal hearing on February 29, 2024. This prompted the Court of Appeal of the canton of Zurich to dismiss the proceedings as settled (fiction of withdrawal according to Art. 407 Abs. 1 lit. a StPO). A.________ then appealed to the Federal Court but died during the proceedings on July 28, 2024. Lawyer Paul Hofer continued to request free legal aid and representation.

Summary of the Facts

The appellant A.________ filed a complaint against a decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Fribourg dated January 16, 2025, which declared the legal remedies against an order of the police judge dated October 15, 2024, as inadmissible. The background was the late submission of an opposition letter against a criminal order dated August 16, 2024. The Federal Court had to address the issue of the formal admissibility of the complaint.

Summary of the Facts