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 dispositions. For the other rulings, you will find a summary of the facts. The complete 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.
1C_51/2025: Admissibility of a driver's license revocation due to traffic rule violations
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was checked for a traffic offense on November 14, 2023, and was fined based on a penalty order from the Public Prosecutor's Office of Graubünden. The Road Traffic Office of Graubünden then revoked his driver's license based on Art. 16b para. 2 lit. e SVG. A.________ filed a complaint against the revocation of the driver's license, which was rejected by the Department of Justice, Security, and Health, and later by the Administrative Court of the Canton of Graubünden. A.________ requested the Federal Court to reduce the measure to a one-month driver's license revocation.
Summary of the Considerations
E.1: The complaint in public law matters is admissible. E.2: The raised objection regarding a violation of the right to be heard is rejected, as the lower court examined essential arguments of the complainant and provided adequate reasoning. E.3: The alleged incorrect determination of facts is rejected. The lower court correctly relied on the facts of the accepted penalty order and made a non-arbitrary interpretation. E.4: The legal assessment as a medium-level offense according to Art. 16b para. 1 lit. a SVG is confirmed. The complainant's limited visibility posed a significant danger to traffic safety. E.5: The increase of the measure to a revocation of the driver's license for an indefinite period with a minimum duration of two years according to Art. 16b para. 2 lit. e SVG is justified and in accordance with federal law due to the significant accumulation of offenses.
Summary of the Disposition
The Federal Court rejected the complaint and imposed the court costs on the complainant.
5A_740/2024: Measures for Marriage Protection: Maintenance Contribution
Summary of the Facts
The parties, who have been married since 1987, have been living separately since 2018. Various court decisions regarding the separation arrangements have already been made, including a ratified convention on protective measures. By application dated December 21, 2022, the complainant requested a monthly maintenance payment of CHF 13,000 retroactively from March 1, 2022, from the first-instance court. The respondent requested a subsidiary amount of CHF 2,000. The first instance decided on a maintenance contribution of CHF 10,170 per month. The cantonal court reduced this amount to CHF 5,050 until March 31, 2024, and CHF 5,970 from April 1, 2024.
Summary of the Considerations
The present complaint is directed against a cantonal decision regarding precautionary measures in divorce proceedings. The conditions for examining a violation of constitutional rights by the Federal Court (Art. 98 BGG) are explained. The substantive and temporal jurisdiction as well as the requirements for reasoning are examined and considered generally given. Various substantive points of the contested ruling are examined: The calculation of the respondent's income was assessed as not arbitrary, while the non-consideration of real estate maintenance costs was found to be partly arbitrary. The decision regarding procedural costs and party compensation in the cantonal proceedings is referred back for a new determination due to the partial approval of the complaint. The complaint is partially upheld and the future maintenance arrangement is to be reassessed.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint was partially upheld, the cantonal decision regarding maintenance from April 1, 2024, was annulled, and referred back for reassessment. The court costs are to be distributed among the parties, and the respondent must pay an amount to the complainant.
1C_374/2024: Decision on the Removal of Zoning Violations
Summary of the Facts
The complainants, A.A. and A.B., are co-owners of properties in Onsernone, which are located in a protected agricultural zone according to the zoning plan. Various structures (including fences, pergolas, wooden posts) were erected without a building permit. This led to a series of administrative and court proceedings. The municipal council ordered the removal of these structures, which was confirmed by higher authorities, including the Administrative Court.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Court examines the formal admissibility of the complaint and considers it generally given, as it is a final cantonal decision in the field of public law. The subject of the dispute is solely the order of the municipal council dated June 12, 2023, for the removal of the structures on parcel no. 369. Remarks on other structures (on parcel no. 373) are inadmissible. The Federal Court reaffirms that construction projects in an agricultural zone require a building permit and that the questioned structures do not fall under the exception article for garden facilities. The location outside the construction zones makes the permit requirement mandatory, and the constructed structures are obviously in violation of zoning regulations. The Federal Court confirms the order for the removal of the structures as lawful, as there are no significant new facts or legal changes that could justify subsequent approval. The exception of not requiring a separate remediation permit was correctly applied by the Administrative Court, as the illegality of the structures was clear. The legal basis (notably Art. 34 para. 5 of the Spatial Planning Ordinance and Art. 16a Spatial Planning Act) excludes a permit for these structures. There is no violation of the principle of proportionality. The interest in enforcing the separation principle outweighs the private interest in retaining the structures. The activities of the complainants in the agricultural zone are legally classified as leisure agriculture and are not zoning-compliant. Nevertheless, the principle of property guarantee is still respected, as restrictions in the public interest are justified.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint is rejected, and the complainants are imposed the court costs.
2C_82/2023: Ruling regarding the Non-Renewal of Residence Permit and Expulsion of a Filipino National
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, a Filipino national, had been employed as a domestic worker in Switzerland since 2011. His residence permit was initially tied to a specific employment relationship. After losing his job in 2016 and receiving social assistance, the renewal of the permit was denied by the cantonal authorities. The complainant claimed he was a victim of human trafficking and also cited health and personal reasons. The lower courts confirmed the denial of the residence permit and the resulting expulsion.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
6B_649/2023: Decision on the Complaint against Two Rulings of the Geneva Justice
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ and the respondent B.________ are involved in a long-standing legal dispute that encompasses both civil and criminal elements. At its core, it concerns the ownership and economic circumstances of the Swiss corporation D.________ as well as criminal allegations such as fraud, breach of trust, and money laundering. The complainant alleges that he had sole control over the company, while B.________ is said to have used forged documents and unjustified payments to appropriate property and resources. The Federal Court handles two complaints arising from this dispute: one against the ruling of the Chambre pénale d'appel et de révision of the Geneva justice dated March 27, 2023, and the other against the ruling of the same instance dated September 30, 2024, which denies a revision of the earlier ruling.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_811/2025: Decision regarding the Preservation of Deadline in a Complaint against a Cantonal Decision in a Child Protection Matter
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and B.________ are the parents of the children C.________ and D.________ as well as E.________. Due to a doctor's signal, a procedure was initiated before the Tribunal de protection de l'adulte et de l'enfant of the Canton of Geneva (TPAE). Among other things, this ordered the continuation of the placement decision as well as further measures for child protection. A.________ filed a complaint against this cantonal decision, which was declared inadmissible due to alleged missed deadlines by the Chambre de surveillance of the Cour de justice des Cantons de Genève. A.________ then turned to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
6B_371/2025: Ruling on the Disposition of Seized Assets and Multiple Qualified Unfaithful Management
Summary of the Facts
The Cantonal Court of Lucerne sentenced the complainant at the second instance to a partially suspended prison sentence of 2 years and 6 months, a conditional fine, and ordered a restitution claim. A prohibition on activity was waived, but a violation of the acceleration requirement was established. The complainant filed a complaint and requested the annulment of the ruling and referral.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
6F_36/2025: Inadmissibility of the Revision Request
Summary of the Facts
The lower court, the Corte di appello e di revisione penale (CARP) in the Canton of Ticino, convicted the complainant A.________ on August 21, 2024, for professional fraud (partially attempted), multiple forgery of documents, multiple reaching of false certification, and unfaithful management. The sentence was three years of imprisonment, of which 18 months were suspended for a probationary period of two years. The Federal Court rejected a complaint from A.________ against this ruling on August 20, 2025, to the extent that it was admitted. On October 9, 2025, A.________ requested the revision of this ruling of the Federal Court, based on several reasons according to Articles 121 and 123 BGG.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_626/2024: Ruling regarding Care Services in Accident Insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________ suffered a complete tetraplegia on July 7, 2020, due to a head dive into the Aare. SWICA Versicherungen AG granted him monthly benefits of CHF 3,091.39 for care and assistance at home from October 2022. The Insurance Court of the Canton of Solothurn increased this amount to CHF 7,455.26, after which SWICA filed a complaint. They requested a reduction of the benefits to CHF 7,288.50 and contested the qualification of certain care actions as medical care.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_210/2025: Ruling on a Recognition Action for a Promissory Note Claim
Summary of the Facts
Bank B.________ AG granted D.________ AG a mortgage loan of CHF 3.9 million in 2017 to finance a property purchase. To secure the loan, A.________ AG established a registered promissory note for the same amount on the properties. Following payment default by D.________ AG, the bank initiated bankruptcy proceedings against both it and A.________ AG for the realization of the collateral. A.________ AG raised an objection and disputed the formal validity of the security transfer as well as the admissibility of a corporate intercession. The Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich ordered A.________ AG to pay the amount of the promissory note with a partial judgment. A.________ AG filed a complaint against this with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2C_414/2025: Permit under the Free Movement Agreement
Summary of the Facts
A Kosovo national, A.________, applied for a permit under the Free Movement Agreement (FZA) to be able to live with his Romanian wife residing in Switzerland. He was convicted for offenses in Switzerland and Bulgaria, including serious drug offenses, and was imprisoned until 2020. The competent authorities and the cantonal court of Vaud rejected the application, as the man was still considered a threat to public order and safety.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_591/2025: Ruling regarding Precautionary Measures in Divorce Proceedings (Maintenance and Child Matters)
Summary of the Facts
The complainant (born 1988) and the respondent (born 1989) are the separated spouses and parents of two children, C.________ (born 2016) and D.________ (born 2017). Since 2020, the divorce proceedings have been pending. Among other things, the custody arrangement, the right of contact, and the amount of maintenance contributions are disputed. The Superior Court of the Canton of Zug examined the requests of both parties in its ruling of June 23, 2025, and partially amended them.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_358/2024: Approval of IV Pension Requirements
Summary of the Facts
A.________, born 1970, submitted an initial application to the Disability Insurance (IV) in 2009 due to complaints such as headaches and dizziness. The IV rejected the claim based on a neurological assessment in 2011. A second application to the IV was made in 2018, with a differential diagnosis of suspected postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) being considered in a report from 2020. The IV granted A.________ a full pension from February 2019 and a half pension from October 2020. However, A.________ requested a retroactive revision for the period starting from 2010, which the IV rejected. The lower court (Cour de justice des Cantons de Genève) decided in favor of the insured, after which the IV filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_599/2025: Question of Inadmissibility due to Late Filing of the Complaint
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a complaint against the ruling of the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich dated August 20, 2025, which was delivered to him on September 24, 2025. However, the complaint was only submitted on October 27, 2025, after the expiry of the 30-day appeal period according to Art. 100 para. 1 BGG.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_651/2025: Access to Police Data and Their Correction
Summary of the Facts
The complainant requested access to the complete police reports of two incidents on January 4 and February 18, 2025, which occurred after burglaries at her residence in Geneva. The police denied access to all details citing the protection of personal data of third parties and instead provided excerpts. Furthermore, the complainant objected to errors and what she perceived as derogatory characterizations of the recorded statements (“incoherent”). The administrative chamber of the Cour de justice of the Canton of Geneva rejected her complaint against this decision, after which she appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_935/2025: Decision on the Suspension of Proceedings for the Return of a Child
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and B.________, both Romanian nationals, are the separated parents of C.________, born in 2014. After the mother moved to Switzerland with the child, the father requested the return of the child to Romania based on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (CArap). Despite the return order of the lower court, the return of the child has not yet been carried out due to ongoing criminal proceedings in Romania against the mother. The father subsequently requested modifications to the return guidelines and arrangements for personal contact in a separate proceeding. The president of the Child Protection Chamber of the Appellate Court of the Canton of Ticino ordered the suspension of both proceedings, which the father challenged before the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_1023/2025: Inadmissibility of a Complaint regarding a Recusal Request
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, a divorced father of a child born in 2015, files a complaint against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft, which did not enter into a recusal request submitted by him. The lower court justified its inadmissibility by stating that the written judgment in the underlying proceeding was still pending and that the complainant could raise the alleged procedural errors in a complaint against the reasoned judgment.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_845/2023: Decision regarding the Unsealing of Evidence in Tax Criminal Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Tax Administration is conducting a criminal investigation due to suspicion of tax evasion. In the course of the investigations, it requested documents from A.________ Bank Cooperative related to certain accounts, which were sealed after being submitted. The Tax Administration applied for unsealing, but the complaint chamber of the Federal Criminal Court rejected the request due to insufficient substantiation and documentation of the relevant evidence and ordered the return of the documents. The Tax Administration filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_1001/2024: Complaint regarding the Non-Admission of a Criminal Proceeding and Lack of Standing
Summary of the Facts
A.________ SA filed several criminal complaints against B.________ and other parties for allegations related to unauthorized stock transactions and other possible offenses such as unfaithful management and forgery. The Public Prosecutor's Office opened a partial criminal investigation but decided not to pursue one of the complaints against other parties (Criminal Complaint 6). The Superior Court of the Canton of Zurich did not enter into the complaint of A.________ SA against this non-pursuance due to lack of standing, after which the complainant filed a complaint in criminal matters with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_706/2025: Divorce Proceedings regarding Delay of Justice
Summary of the Facts
In the present case, the complainant A.________ complains about an alleged delay of justice or refusal of justice in the divorce proceedings before the cantonal courts. He also criticizes the referral of a submission he made and demands a finding of a delay of justice as well as the grant of free legal assistance. The Federal Court is particularly concerned with the question of whether there is a legitimate interest in establishing the delay of justice.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2C_653/2025: State Liability and Free Legal Assistance
Summary of the Facts
A.________ applied to the Finance Directorate of the Canton of Zurich for free legal assistance in connection with state liability claims. The Finance Directorate rejected the application, stating that the preliminary proceedings for state liability claims are usually free of charge and that the endeavor appeared to be obviously hopeless. Subsequently, the Cantonal Council of Zurich dismissed an appeal, and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich confirmed this decision. A.________ then filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_724/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint Regarding the Revocation of the Driver's License
Summary of the Facts
The cantonal Road Traffic Office of the Canton of Geneva revoked A.________'s driver's license for three months by decision dated August 21, 2024. An alleged complaint filing date of September 2, 2024, could not be proven, as the dispatch of the complaint was only made by regular mail without proof. The Tribunal administratif de première instance (TAPI) declared the complaint inadmissible by decision dated November 21, 2024. The complaint to the administrative chamber of the Cour de justice Geneva was also rejected by ruling on November 4, 2025. A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court on November 20, 2025.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_611/2025: Ruling on the Procedural Prerequisite in the Area of Disability Insurance
Summary of the Facts
The complainant challenges a ruling of the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich, which rejected his claim for a disability pension. The cantonal court relied on a medical report that stated the complainant was substantially capable of working in an adapted role. The complainant did not provide a substantial justification in his complaint to the Federal Court but merely repeated his view on his own inability to work.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_1026/2025: Ruling regarding the Re-Placement of a Child and Child Protection Measures
Summary of the Facts
The complainant (mother) requested the re-placement of her daughter (born 2017) and the restoration of the right to determine her residence. The KESB had previously assigned actual custody to the father and ordered a supervised visitation right for the mother. After the KESB rejected the request for re-placement, the Child and Adult Protection Court of the Superior Court of Bern dismissed the complaint raised against it as far as it entered.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_172/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint against the Immediate Dismissal of a Cantonal Official
Summary of the Facts
A cantonal official, who had been working at the Office cantonal des véhicules (OCV) in Geneva since 2012, was dismissed without notice by the Conseil d'État of the Canton of Geneva due to inappropriate behavior, particularly towards a colleague. Upon the affected person's complaint, the administrative chamber of the Cour de justice confirmed this decision, as the allegations were deemed sufficiently substantiated and the dismissal was considered proportionate.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_435/2025: Dismissal of the Complaint in Public Law Matters
Summary of the Facts
The closure of a section of a cantonal road by fixed posts and a chain was ordered by the Centro di manutenzione of the Canton of Ticino. The complainants (A.________, B.________, and C.________) initially opposed this measure and demanded the removal of the chain as well as the reconstruction of the previous protection with white and black posts. Both the cantonal government and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Ticino partially or completely rejected the complaint. They appealed this decision to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_293/2025: Decision on the Admissibility of a Refusal to Acknowledge Debt
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ challenged the non-admission of a so-called "refusal to acknowledge debt" according to Art. 83 para. 2 SchKG by the Tribunal der Versicherungen of the Canton of Ticino. It concerned the recovery of supplementary benefits by the cantonal compensation office. A.________ requested that debt claims of the compensation office amounting to CHF 5,059.30 and CHF 57,893 based on recovery decisions not be acknowledged. The Tribunal der Versicherungen of the Canton of Ticino declared itself incompetent and rejected the application.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
6B_638/2023: Decision regarding Crimes and Cost Consequences
Summary of the Facts
This case concerns A.________, who was convicted in connection with his activities as a co-administrator of a financial firm in Switzerland (D.________ SA) and other business activities for various offenses. He was particularly accused of fraud, unfaithful management, money laundering, forgery, and attempted coercion. The case led to several court proceedings, with the last judicial decision of the Federal Court following a referral intended to clarify the remaining questions. The Federal Court had to decide on the appropriateness of the penalty, the distribution of costs, and the legal assessment of the individual offenses.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8F_10/2025: Ruling regarding Revision Request in a Disability Insurance Case
Summary of the Facts
The applicant A.________ requested the IV office of the Canton of Zurich in 2019 for integration measures and a disability pension. This application was rejected by decision dated June 23, 2023, which was confirmed by the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich (ruling dated March 22, 2024) and the Federal Court (ruling 8C_288/2024 dated October 29, 2024). With a revision request dated May 7, 2025, the applicant sought to amend the ruling of the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.