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.
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 Graubünden Road Traffic Office subsequently revoked his driver's license based on Art. 16b para. 2 lit. e SVG. A.________ filed a complaint against the driver's license revocation, 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 accepted. E.2: The objection raised regarding a violation of the right to be heard is dismissed, as the lower court examined essential arguments of the complainant and provided sufficient reasoning. E.3: The alleged erroneous 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 restricted visibility of the complainant posed a significant danger to road safety. E.5: The increase of the measure to an indefinite revocation of the driver's license with a minimum duration of two years according to Art. 16b para. 2 lit. e SVG is justified by the significant accumulation of offenses and is in accordance with federal law.
Summary of the Disposition
The Federal Court rejected the complaint and imposed the court costs on the complainant.
5A_740/2024: Measures of marriage protection: Alimony payment
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. In a submission dated December 21, 2022, the complainant requested a monthly alimony payment of CHF 13,000 retroactive to March 1, 2022, from the first-instance court. The respondent requested a subsidiary amount of CHF 2,000. The first instance decided on an alimony payment 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 on precautionary measures in divorce proceedings. The requirements 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 found to be fundamentally given. Various substantive points of the contested judgment are examined: The calculation of the respondent's income was assessed as not arbitrary, while the failure to consider real estate maintenance costs was found to be partly arbitrary. The decision on procedural costs and party compensation in the cantonal procedure is referred back for a new determination due to the partial approval of the complaint. The complaint is partially upheld, and the future alimony arrangement is to be reassessed.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint was partially upheld, the cantonal decision regarding alimony from April 1, 2024, was overturned, and the case was referred back for reassessment. The court costs are to be shared between the parties, and the respondent must pay an amount to the complainant.
1C_374/2024: Decision on the removal of zoning-incompatible constructions
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 constructions (including fences, pergolas, wooden posts) were erected without a building permit. This led to a series of administrative and judicial proceedings. The municipal council ordered the removal of these constructions, 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 fundamentally given, as it concerns a final cantonal decision in the field of public law. The subject of the dispute is solely the decision of the municipal council of June 12, 2023, regarding the removal of the constructions on parcel No. 369. Comments on other constructions (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 constructions do not fall under the exception article for garden equipment. The location outside of building zones makes the permit requirement mandatory, and the constructed works are obviously zoning-incompatible. The Federal Court confirms the order for the removal of the constructions as lawful, as there are no substantial new facts or legal changes that could justify subsequent approval. The exception of not obtaining a separate remediation permit was correctly applied by the Administrative Court, as the illegality of the constructions was clear. The legal bases (notably Art. 34 para. 5 of the Spatial Planning Ordinance and Art. 16a Spatial Planning Act) exclude a permit for these constructions. There is no violation of the principle of proportionality. The interest in enforcing the separation principle outweighs the private interest in maintaining the constructions. 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 respected, as restrictions in the public interest are justified.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint is rejected, and the complainants are ordered to bear the court costs.
2C_82/2023: Judgment regarding the non-renewal of the residence permit and expulsion of a Filipino national
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, a Filipino national, had been employed as a housekeeper in Switzerland since 2011. His residence permit was initially tied to a specific employment relationship. After losing his job in 2016 and receiving social welfare support, the extension of the permit was denied by the cantonal authorities. The complainant claimed he was a victim of human trafficking and cited health and personal reasons. The lower courts confirmed the denial of the residence permit and the subsequent expulsion.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_649/2023: Decision regarding the complaint against two judgments of the Geneva judiciary
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ and the respondent B.________ are involved in a long-standing legal dispute that includes both civil and criminal law elements. The core of the matter 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 claims he had sole control over the company, while B.________ allegedly used forged documents and unjustified payments to appropriate property and funds. The Federal Court addresses two complaints arising from this dispute: one against the judgment of the Chambre pénale d'appel et de révision of the Geneva judiciary from March 27, 2023, and the other against the judgment of the same instance from September 30, 2024, which rejects a revision of the former judgment.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_811/2025: Decision regarding the observance of the 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). This ordered, among other things, the continuation of the placement decision and further child protection measures. A.________ filed a complaint against this cantonal decision, which was declared inadmissible by the Chambre de surveillance of the Cour de justice of the Canton of Geneva due to an alleged missed deadline. A.________ then turned to the Federal Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_371/2025: Judgment regarding the disposition of seized assets and multiple qualified disloyal management
Summary of the Facts
The Cantonal Court of Lucerne sentenced the complainant in the second instance to a partly suspended prison sentence of 2 years and 6 months, a conditional fine, and ordered a compensation claim. A ban on activities was waived, but a violation of the acceleration requirement was established. The complainant filed a complaint and requested the annulment of the judgment and referral back.
Full summary of the judgment 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 obtaining false certification, and disloyal management. The sentence was three years of imprisonment, with 18 months suspended for a probation period of two years. The Federal Court rejected a complaint from A.________ against this judgment on August 20, 2025, to the extent that it was admitted. On October 9, 2025, A.________ requested the revision of this judgment of the Federal Court, based on several grounds according to Articles 121 and 123 BGG.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_626/2024: Judgment regarding care services in accident insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________ suffered a complete tetraplegia on July 7, 2020, from a dive into the Aare. SWICA Versicherungen AG granted him monthly benefits of CHF 3,091.39 for care and assistance at home starting 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 objected to the qualification of certain care actions as medical care.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_210/2025: Judgment on a recognition claim for a mortgage bond claim
Summary of the Facts
The Bank B.________ AG granted the D.________ AG a mortgage loan of CHF 3.9 million in 2017 to finance a property purchase. To secure the loan, the A.________ AG established a registered mortgage bond for the same amount against the properties. After the D.________ AG fell into arrears, the bank initiated bankruptcy proceedings against both it and the A.________ AG for the realization of the collateral. The A.________ AG filed a legal 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 the A.________ AG to pay the amount of the mortgage bond in a partial judgment. The A.________ AG filed a complaint against this with the Federal Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_414/2025: Permit under the Free Movement Agreement
Summary of the Facts
A Kosovar national, A.________, applied for a permit under the Free Movement Agreement (FZA) to live with his Romanian wife who resides in Switzerland. He was convicted of offenses in Switzerland and Bulgaria, including serious drug offenses, and was imprisoned until 2020. The competent authorities and the cantonal tribunal of the Canton of Vaud rejected the application, as the man was still considered a threat to public order and safety.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_591/2025: Judgment regarding precautionary measures in divorce proceedings (maintenance and child matters)
Summary of the Facts
The complainant (born 1988) and the respondent (born 1989) are 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, contact rights, and the amount of maintenance payments are disputed. The Superior Court of the Canton of Zug had examined the requests of both parties in its judgment of June 23, 2025, and partially modified them.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_358/2024: Approval of the IV pension requirements
Summary of the Facts
A.________, born 1970, filed an initial application for disability insurance (IV) in 2009 due to complaints such as headaches and dizziness. IV rejected the claim based on a neurological report in 2011. A second application for IV was made in 2018, where a differentially diagnosed postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) was considered in a report from 2020. IV granted A.________ a full pension from February 2019 and a half pension from October 2020. However, A.________ demanded a retroactive revision for the period from 2010, which IV denied. The lower court (Cour de justice des Kantons Genève) decided in favor of the insured, after which IV lodged a complaint with the Federal Court.
Full summary of the judgment 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 judgment of the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich dated August 20, 2025, which was served to him on September 24, 2025. However, the complaint was not submitted until October 27, 2025, after the 30-day appeal period according to Art. 100 para. 1 BGG had expired.
Full summary of the judgment 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 from two incidents on January 4 and February 18, 2025, which took place 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. Additionally, the complainant contested errors and a perceived derogatory character of the recorded remarks ("incoherent"). The Chambre administrative of the Cour de justice of the Canton of Geneva rejected her complaint against this decision, after which she appealed to the Federal Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_935/2025: Decision regarding 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.________, who was 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 lower court's return order, the child's return has not been executed due to ongoing criminal proceedings in Romania against the mother. The father subsequently requested changes to the return guidelines and arrangements for personal contact in a separate procedure. However, 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.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_1023/2025: Inadmissibility of a complaint about a request for recusal
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, a divorced father of a child born in 2015, is filing a complaint against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft, which did not admit a recusal request he submitted. The lower court justified its inadmissibility by stating that the written judgment in the underlying procedure is still pending and that the complainant can assert the alleged procedural errors in a complaint against the reasoned judgment.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_845/2023: Decision on the unsealing of evidence in tax criminal proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Tax Administration is conducting a criminal investigation due to suspected tax evasion on withholding taxes. In the course of the investigation, it requested documents from the A.________ Bank Cooperative regarding certain accounts, which were sealed after their release. The tax administration requested unsealing, but the complaint chamber of the Federal Criminal Court rejected the request due to insufficient explanation and substantiation of the relevant evidence and ordered the return of the documents. The tax administration filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1001/2024: Complaint regarding the non-initiation of a criminal proceeding and lack of standing to appeal
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ SA filed several criminal complaints against B.________ and other parties due to allegations related to unauthorized stock market transactions and other possible offenses such as disloyal management and forgery. The public prosecutor partially opened a criminal investigation but ordered the non-initiation of proceedings regarding a criminal complaint against other participants (criminal complaint 6). The Superior Court of the Canton of Zurich did not admit the complaint of A.________ SA against this non-initiation due to lack of standing to appeal, after which the complainant filed a complaint in criminal matters with the Federal Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_706/2025: Divorce proceedings regarding delays in legal proceedings
Summary of the Facts
In the present case, the complainant A.________ contests an alleged delay in legal proceedings in the divorce case before the cantonal courts. He also criticizes the referral of a statement he submitted and demands a finding of a delay in legal proceedings and the granting of free legal assistance. The Federal Court specifically addresses whether there is a legitimate interest in establishing the delay in legal proceedings.
Full summary of the judgment 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 procedure for state liability claims is usually free of charge and that the endeavor seemed clearly hopeless. Subsequently, the government council of the Canton 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.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_724/2025: Inadmissibility of the complaint against 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 order dated August 21, 2024. An alleged date of complaint submission on September 2, 2024, could not be proven, as the complaint was sent only by regular mail without proof. The Tribunal administratif de première instance (TAPI) declared the complaint inadmissible by decision of November 21, 2024. The complaint to the administrative chamber of the Cour de justice Geneva was also rejected by judgment of November 4, 2025. A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court on November 20, 2025.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_611/2025: Judgment regarding the procedural requirements in the area of disability insurance
Summary of the Facts
The complainant appeals against a judgment 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 occupation. In his complaint to the Federal Court, the complainant did not present a substantiated argument but merely repeated his viewpoint on his own inability to work.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_1026/2025: Judgment regarding the return placement of a child and child protection measures
Summary of the Facts
The complainant (mother) requested the return 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 supervised visitation rights for the mother. After the KESB rejected the request for return placement, the Child and Adult Protection Court of the Superior Court of Bern dismissed the complaint raised against it, to the extent that it considered it.
Full summary of the judgment 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 immediately dismissed by the Conseil d'État of the Canton of Geneva due to inappropriate behavior, particularly towards a colleague. In response to the complainant's appeal, the Chambre administrative of the Cour de justice confirmed this decision, as the allegations were deemed sufficiently substantiated and the dismissal was considered proportionate.
Full summary of the judgment 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 place on 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 and the reconstruction of the previous security with white and black posts. Both the government council and the administrative court of the Canton of Ticino partially or fully rejected the complaint. Against this decision, they appealed to the Federal Court.
Full summary of the judgment 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" under Art. 83 para. 2 SchKG by the Tribunal der Versicherungen of the Canton of Ticino. This concerned the recovery of supplementary benefits by the cantonal compensation office. A.________ requested not to acknowledge debt claims from the compensation office amounting to CHF 5,059.30 and CHF 57,893, based on recovery decisions. The Tribunal der Versicherungen of the Canton of Ticino declared itself incompetent and rejected the request.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_638/2023: Decision regarding offenses and cost consequences
Summary of the Facts
This case concerns A.________, who was convicted of various offenses in connection with his work as a co-administrator of a financial company in Switzerland (D.________ SA) and other business activities. He was accused of fraud, disloyal management, money laundering, forgery, and attempted coercion. The case led to several court proceedings, with the last judicial decision of the Federal Court clarifying the remaining issues after a referral by the Federal Court. The Federal Court had to decide on the appropriateness of the sentence, the cost distribution, and the legal assessment of the individual offenses.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8F_10/2025: Judgment regarding the 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 request was rejected by order dated June 23, 2023, which was confirmed by the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich (judgment of March 22, 2024) and the Federal Court (judgment 8C_288/2024 of October 29, 2024). With a revision request dated May 7, 2025, the applicant sought to amend the judgment of the Federal Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.