Latest Judgments of the Federal Court

Summary of the Facts

The complainant challenged the rejection of a request by the High Court of the Canton of Thurgau, in which she had requested a waiver of costs concerning legally established procedural fees and a recusal request. Furthermore, the High Court had announced that it would leave further submissions without legally relevant points unanswered. The complaint was directed against the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant was initially placed in the B.________ clinic under medical admission and subsequent decisions on protective custody. After several unsuccessful requests for release, the High Court of the Canton of Graubünden rejected a new complaint. The complainant appealed to the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant A.________ filed a complaint against several orders of the public prosecutor regarding non-initiation and termination to the Cantonal Court of Schwyz. This court did not admit the complaint. Subsequently, A.________ appealed to the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The B.________ GmbH initiated debt collection against the complainant, against which she had filed a complaint. The lower courts, the District Court of Kulm and subsequently the High Court of the Canton of Aargau, dismissed the complaints as far as they were admitted. The complainant then filed a complaint in civil matters with the Federal Court, but did not pay the cost advance even after a deadline was set.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ was convicted, among other things, of attempted serious bodily harm. The lower instance (High Court of the Canton of Bern) ordered a seven-year expulsion and dismissed A.________'s appeal against the expulsion. The Federal Court assesses the complaint in criminal matters from A.________, who is contesting the expulsion and its entry in the Schengen Information System (SIS).

Summary of the Facts

A.________ and B.________ are parents of a child, C.________, for whom a regulated visitation arrangement has existed since a divorce agreement. After repeated violations of contact rights by the mother and due to high conflict potential between the parents, the KESB introduced various measures, including supervised visits and the ordering of a parenting ability assessment. The mother opposed these measures, among other things with a recusal request, which was denied. The contested decision of the High Court of the Canton of Bern confirmed the measures of the KESB.

Summary of the Facts

The A.________ Association organizes an annual tennis tournament series with participants from all over Switzerland. The Federal Tax Administration conducted a value-added tax audit for the tax periods 2015 to 2019 and classified the entry and registration fees collected by the association as tax-free income due to an exempt activity (Art. 21 para. 2 no. 15 VAT Act). This led to a correction of input tax amounting to CHF 79,500.–. The association argued that it merely acted as an intermediary and that the funds belonged to the tennis centers. The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the association's complaint.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ filed an undated complaint against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft of October 20, 2025, regarding the reimbursement of the official defense compensation. The Federal Court subsequently opened the proceedings 7B_1250/2025. The complainant declared with a submission dated December 6, 2025, his complete withdrawal of the complaint.

Summary of the Facts

The Kosovo national A.________ (born in 1987) lived in Switzerland since December 2021 due to a marriage with a resident compatriot after multiple deportations. After his wife moved to Albania, the renewal of his residence permit was denied. The complainant appealed the decision to the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The A.________ GmbH filed a complaint on September 23, 2025, against a decision of the High Court of the Canton of Aargau (4th Chamber) from September 2, 2025. In a letter dated December 11, 2025, the complainant withdrew the complaint.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant had filed a complaint with the High Court of the Canton of Thurgau and requested the recusal of all members of the High Court. The High Court then ordered a cost advance of CHF 800, along with a note regarding the possibility of applying for free legal assistance. The complainant appealed the order to the Federal Court and simultaneously requested suspensive effect.

Summary of the Facts

The B.________ AG applied for provisional legal opening at the District Court of Zurich, which was rejected by the single judge on April 22, 2025. The High Court of the Canton of Zurich overturned this decision on October 23, 2025, and referred the matter back to the District Court for a new decision. A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court on November 25, 2025.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant, a member of the B.________ club, challenged a change in the statute concerning the complete separation of the club from the C.________ foundation and the abolition of its consent requirement for changes to the statute according to Art. 19 para. 1 of the club's statutes. The lower courts dismissed the claim, after which the complainant filed a complaint in civil matters with the Federal Court. She requested that the club resolution be declared null and void.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ requested the revision of a judgment of the Federal Court dated October 10, 2025 (6B_795/2025), in which her complaint against a judgment of the Chambre pénale d'appel et de révision of the Cour de justice of the Canton of Geneva dated August 28, 2025, was declared inadmissible. The revision requests, dated October 21 and 22, 2025, aimed to overturn the measures imposed on A.________, to suspend her file, provide medical care, and conditional release.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ applied to the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich for the waiver of court costs amounting to CHF 570, which were imposed on him in a previous procedure. After the rejection of his request by the Administrative Court and the Central Collection Office of the High Court of the Canton of Zurich, A.________ appealed to the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant A.________ filed a complaint in criminal matters against a decision of the Cantonal Court of Schwyz, which did not admit his complaint against the non-initiation order of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Schwyz dated August 21, 2025.

Summary of the Facts

A guardianship was established for the complainant in September 2022 with income and asset management. The KESB Winterthur approved the report and accounts of the guardian, set a compensation of CHF 6,000 and lump sum expenses of CHF 400. The District Council of Winterthur dismissed the complaint regarding this. The High Court reduced the expenses to the actual necessary costs and otherwise confirmed the compensation determination. The complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Court but did not substantively argue against a specific violation of rights.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant, a divorced father of a daughter born in 2015, requested the KESB Birstal to change the guardian for his daughter, who, however, advocated for the retention of the previous guardian. The KESB dismissed the request, as did the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft, which predominantly did not admit the father's complaint. The complainant brought his concerns to the Federal Court, including referral to another court or an out-of-state authority and a "provisional transfer of custody."

Summary of the Facts

The case involved a dispute between co-owners of an agricultural business ('Domaine C.________'), which was to be operated and sold based on an agreement dated April 29, 2013, and a non-binding contract draft dated February 10, 2014. It concerned the payment of installments for agricultural machinery and livestock worth a total of CHF 350,000. Previous judgments had partially confirmed the purchase price as well as the obligation to pay further amounts. The complainants disputed the claims and requested the admission of new evidence and reassessment during another proceeding.

Summary of the Facts

This case concerns the ordering of a sequester on an account of the B.________ company at Bank F.________ SA by the Tribunal de première instance de Genève. The opposition to this sequester was upheld by the lower instance (Court de justice des Kantons de Genève, Civil Chamber), leading to the lifting of the sequester. A.________, who initially requested the sequester, filed a complaint with the Federal Court. She asserted, among other things, a procedural violation, a false application of the principle of transparency, and a disregard for her right to be heard. However, the Federal Court declared the complaint unfounded and dismissed it as inadmissible.

Summary of the Facts

The A.________ SA filed a complaint with the Federal Court on October 20, 2025, against a decision by the Vice President of the Cour de justice des Kantons de Genève dated September 4, 2025. It was required to make an advance payment of 2,000 CHF by November 13, 2025, but was granted an extended and non-extendable deadline until December 5, 2025. On that date, it submitted a request for free legal assistance, justified by its over-indebtedness and the destitution of its only shareholder.

Summary of the Facts

The A.________ GmbH filed an Aberkennung action, which was deemed inadmissible by the District Court of Höfe on May 2, 2025, due to a rejected request for an extension of the deadline. A.________ GmbH then filed an appeal with the Cantonal Court of Schwyz, which was dismissed by decision dated August 29, 2025, as far as it was admitted. The complainant subsequently filed a complaint with the Federal Court on November 11, 2025.

Summary of the Facts

The Federal Prosecutor's Office investigated the suspicion of disloyal business management and bribery of foreign officials, particularly the suspicion of payments amounting to 1.6 million euros to secure economic advantages for A.________ AG in transport projects in Qatar. In the context of this investigation, a forensic copy of the business mailbox of the former CEO of A.________ AG was secured. The Federal Prosecutor's Office requested the unsealing of this data, which was partially approved by the Cantonal Court of Bern. A.________ AG appealed against this decision to the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ applied in June 2020 for a Covid-19 loan of CHF 50,000 for the E.________ GmbH he founded and made false statements on the application regarding the incorporation date of the GmbH to meet the requirements for a loan. The loan was approved and not repaid. A.________ was convicted of fraud and document forgery. He denied the allegations, argued a factual error, and claimed he did not act with intent or seek advantages.

Summary of the Facts