Latest Rulings of the Federal Court
Here you will find the latest rulings of the Federal Court (BGer) from bger.ch. For the first three rulings, we present detailed summaries including facts, considerations, and dispositive rulings. For the other rulings, you will find a summary of the facts. The full summaries of all rulings are available on the portal of Lexplorer. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest rulings tailored to your areas of law.
2C_671/2025: Ruling on International Mutual Assistance in Tax Matters
Summary of Facts
The Ukrainian tax authority requested assistance from the Federal Tax Administration (ESTV) based on the Agreement 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 had 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 notices regarding the information. The remaining points of appeal were dismissed. A.________ then filed a public law appeal to the Federal Court.
Summary of Considerations
- **E.1:** The Federal Court examines the jurisdiction and the admissibility requirements. According to Article 84a BGG, an appeal in the area of international mutual assistance in tax matters is only permissible if a legal question of fundamental importance is at stake or if the case is particularly significant. - **E.1.1:** A legal question of fundamental importance is affirmed if the decision can serve as a leading precedent for practice. However, the appellant raises a legal question regarding Article 177 ZPO, which is not specific to mutual assistance. - **E.1.3:** The lower court examined the principle of availability, the principle of subsidiarity, the principle of specialty, and the anticipated significance 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 procedure 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 established. - **E.1.5:** The Federal Court finds that neither a legal question of fundamental importance nor a particularly significant case exists.
Summary of Dispositive Ruling
The Federal Court did not enter into the appeal and imposed the court costs on the appellant. No party compensation was awarded.
7B_171/2025: Ruling on Official Defense and Right to be Heard
Summary of Facts
A.________ was sanctioned by the Regional 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. Lawyer Julian Burkhalter challenged the valid service of penal orders and filed an objection against the penal order. Before the Regional Court of Bern Jura-Seeland, A.________ requested the suspension of the proceedings PEN 24 301 and the appointment of lawyer Burkhalter as official defense counsel, which was rejected. 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 Considerations
- **E.1**: An appeal was filed against the decision of the Cantonal Court in criminal matters. The Federal Court examines the prerequisites for entering into the appeal. The appeal is admissible. - **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 can be remedied in the appellate procedure if the appellate authority reviews the facts and legal situation freely. The remedy was rightly carried out by the Cantonal Court. - **E.3**: The right to official defense according to Article 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 this 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 appellant criticizes the partial cost allocation of the lower court proceedings. However, the Federal Court confirms that the cost regulation lies within the discretion of the lower court and that the remedy of the violation of the right to be heard was adequately considered.
Summary of Dispositive Ruling
The appeal and the request for free legal aid were dismissed, and the court costs were imposed on the appellant.
7B_1088/2025: Issues of Formal Validity in a Criminal Appeal: Inadmissibility
Summary of Facts
The 2nd Chamber of the Criminal Court of the Bern High Court did not enter into 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, through two separately sent orders, to submit a signed copy of the appeal, as otherwise it would not be considered, but the appellant did not respond.
Summary of Considerations
- **E.1:** According to Article 42 para. 5 BGG (Federal Court Act), a signed appeal 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 Article 44 para. 2 BGG, a delivery by post is deemed 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 appellant responding. - **E.1.2:** The failure to submit a signed appeal within the set deadline leads to the obvious inadmissibility of the appeal (Article 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 carried out so far (Article 66 para. 1 and 2 BGG).
Summary of Dispositive Ruling
The appeal was declared inadmissible, and the court costs of CHF 500 were imposed on the appellant.
1C_469/2025: Decision on an Appeal Regarding Building Permit with Conditions
Summary of 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 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 an appeal with the Federal Court, challenging the decision of the Administrative Court as well as the conditions.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_512/2025: Inadmissibility of the Appeal Against 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 with a collective garage. After 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 appealed to the Federal Court against this.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5F_69/2025: Ruling Regarding a Second Request for Revision and Recusal Request
Summary of 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 filed various recusal requests against members of the panel.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_819/2025: Inadmissibility of the Appeal Against Detention Order
Summary of Facts
A.________ was sentenced to a prison term of 90 days by a penal order from the Geneva Prosecutor on November 6, 2020, particularly 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, but his cantonal legal remedy was declared inadmissible by the Chambre pénale de recours. The appellant then filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Court.
Full summary of the ruling 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 researcher, 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 breach 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 appeals chamber of the Canton of Vaud dismissed the appeal filed by A.________ on June 2, 2025, due to a lack of substantiated arguments.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_65/2025: Assessment of a Development Plan Considering Habitat Protection
Summary of Facts
The ruling is based on a dispute over the approval of a development plan "Tannenweg" in the municipality of Obersiggenthal, which envisions the widening of an existing road and passes through a potentially protectable habitat. The appellant challenges 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 valuable habitats are central. The lower courts assessed the impacts as minor and approved the project.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
6B_600/2024: Expulsion and Revision
Summary of Facts
A.________ was convicted by the Regional Court of Jura bernois-Seeland on December 1, 2022, among other things for multiple theft, property damage, violations of Article 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 refrained from expulsion. The Second Criminal Chamber of the Bern High Court, on appeal by the Public Prosecutor's Office, decided on June 17, 2024, to expel A.________ and to register this measure in the Schengen Information System (SIS). A.________ then filed an appeal with the Federal Court against the expulsion. In parallel, a revision request was submitted, which was rejected by the 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Bern High Court on November 20, 2024.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_1107/2025: Inadmissibility of an Appeal Due to Insufficient Justification
Summary of Facts
The appellant, A.________, filed an appeal with the Federal Court against a decision of the Chambre des recours pénale des Tribunal cantonal du Canton de Vaud dated August 25, 2025, which declared her cantonal appeal inadmissible due to lack of justification. The subject of the dispute concerned a decision of the Attorney General of Vaud, which had decided not to pursue her criminal complaint. The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, as it did not meet the requirements for sufficient legal justification.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_475/2025: Dismissal of Appeal Due to Inadmissibility
Summary of Facts
The appellant A.________ was initially fined by the cantonal tax office of Valais for failing to submit 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. Subsequently, the appellant submitted a request for revision of cantonal and federal court decisions, which was also declared inadmissible, as no relevant facts or evidence for revision were presented.
Full summary of the ruling 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 against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Obwalden, which did not recognize his objections. The appeal was subsequently forwarded to the Federal Court.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_1049/2025: Appeal Against the Refusal of the Electronic Surveillance Regime and its Inadmissibility Due to Insufficient Justification.
Summary of Facts
The appeal concerns the refusal of the electronic surveillance 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 surveillance regime due to a high risk of recidivism.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_622/2025: Decision on 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 Article 52 LAVS to pay compensation of CHF 69,318.55. He claimed to have merely been a "straw man" and to have 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 premature and thus 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.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2C_670/2025: Ruling on International Mutual Assistance in Tax Matters
Summary of Facts
The Federal Tax Administration (ESTV) received a request for mutual assistance from the State Tax Service of Ukraine for information about the Cypriot company A.________. The case 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 appeal, allowed the mutual assistance, but with confidentiality notices and restrictions on the use of the information by the requesting authority.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_983/2025: Ruling on the Design of Visitation Rights and Guardianship
Summary of 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 execution 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 after 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 requested the Federal Court to revoke the mother's visitation rights, to continue the guardianship unchanged, and to conduct further evidence collection.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8F_16/2025: Ruling Regarding Request for Restoration of Deadline in the Area of Disability Insurance
Summary of Facts
A.________ requested the restoration of the legal remedy deadline and thus the resumption of a procedure concluded with a ruling dated July 30, 2025. The request was made after the cost advance was not paid even within a granted extension.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7F_50/2025: Ruling on the Revision Request
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 entered into the appeal against a decision of the High Court of the Canton of Graubünden.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_700/2025: Non-Entry on an Appeal Regarding Federal Popular Votes
Summary of Facts
The appellant A.________ filed an appeal against the federal popular votes of November 30, 2025, on two popular initiatives (Service-Citoyen 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 ballots. The Government Council of the Canton of Bern dismissed her voting appeal on November 12, 2025, to the extent that 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.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_1340/2024: Ruling on Expulsion and Criminal Procedure Issues
Summary of 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 upheld the convictions, rejected 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.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_1068/2025: Official Defense; Non-Entry on Appeal Due to Non-Payment of Cost Advance
Summary of Facts
The High Court of the Canton of Bern rejected an appeal by the appellants regarding official defense with a decision dated September 3, 2025, to the extent that 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.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_139/2025: Ruling 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 different medical assessments, including an expert opinion from SMAB AG. The appeal filed against this was dismissed by the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich and finally by the Federal Court.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_696/2025: Agreement and Non-Entry on Appeals Regarding International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters
Summary of Facts
The A.________ AG, C.________ Limited, and D.________ Limited separately filed appeals against partial closure orders from the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, which ordered the release of documents regarding bank accounts to Ukraine. These mutual 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 mutual assistance.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1F_19/2025: Ruling on Revision Request
Summary of Facts
A.________ submitted a revision request against the judgment of the Federal Court (1C_440/2025 of August 26, 2025). He criticized the lack of execution of the exchange of writings and the improper handling of his previous submission and the original attachments returned. Furthermore, he criticized that a supervisory report regarding structural governmental failure was omitted in the judgment.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_590/2024: Ruling on the Approval of a Garage Extension Outside the Building Zone
Summary of 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 house as a replacement for an already existing garage on another plot, which no longer meets safety standards due to a road widening. The owners of a neighboring plot objected to the building project. The cantonal Office for Spatial Development approved the building 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.
Full summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.