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 with facts, considerations, and dispositives. For the further 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 legal areas.
1C_714/2025: Non-admission due to late filing of the complaint
Summary of the Facts
The dispute concerns the refusal of authorization to carry out a criminal investigation against employees of the city clerk and enforcement office. The lower court, the Cantonal Court of Zurich, denied the authorization in its decision of September 23, 2025. The Federal Court examined the timely filing of the complaint.
Summary of the Considerations
The complainant filed a criminal complaint against several employees of the city clerk and enforcement office. After the files were forwarded by the Public Prosecutor's Office of Zug and the Public Prosecutor's Office of Limmattal/Albis, the Cantonal Court of Zurich decided to refuse the authorization. The complaint was filed with the Federal Court on November 26, 2025, so its timeliness had to be examined. According to Art. 44 para. 2 BGG, a court delivery in the case of an unsuccessful delivery attempt is deemed to have occurred at the latest after seven days (delivery fiction). The delivery period began on October 4, 2025, and the complaint period ended according to Art. 100 para. 1 BGG on November 3, 2025. Since the filing occurred only in November, the complaint was late and was not considered. No costs were imposed on the complainant.
Summary of the Dispositive
The dispositive stated that the complaint would not be considered and no costs would be charged. The ruling will be delivered to the parties and the involved authorities.
4A_637/2024: Liability lawsuit against corporate bodies
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________, former sole managing director of C.________ SA, was sued by the respondent B.________ SA for damages based on an assignment according to Art. 260 SchKG. The damage is said to have been caused by the late registration of the bankruptcy of C.________ SA. The plaintiff was awarded damages of CHF 404,173.75. The lower court, the II Civil Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Ticino, dismissed the appeal of A.________ and stated that the court of first instance had correctly relied on Art. 42 para. 2 OR in calculating the damages.
Summary of the Considerations
**E. 1**: The complainant has correctly raised his claim in accordance with the provisions of federal jurisprudence; however, the subsidiary reference to the constitutional complaint is irrelevant, as the procedure is of a civil nature and complaints in civil matters are generally permissible. **E. 2.1 to E. 2.2**: The Federal Court applies federal law ex officio (Art. 106 para. 1 BGG), but only examines violations of fundamental rights if they are sufficiently substantiated (Art. 106 para. 2 BGG). Criticisms of an appellate nature are inadmissible. **E. 3 to E. 3.3**: The active legitimacy of the respondent as the assignee under Art. 260 SchKG is confirmed, as they have a claim to assert the rights of the bankruptcy estate. The complainant cannot successfully argue that the damage was not lawfully incurred, as this cannot be raised as a defense against the claimed demand according to consistent case law. **E. 4 to E. 4.3**: The application of Art. 42 para. 2 OR by the lower court is reaffirmed, as the damage had to be estimated due to unclear account documents. The complainant is accused of having failed to provide sufficient evidence for his claims and in particular of not having submitted a plausible argument against the assessment of evidence by the court of first instance.
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaint was dismissed, court costs were imposed, and a party compensation was established. Delivery was made to the party representatives and the lower court.
2C_62/2025: Ruling on the blocking of a domain due to unauthorized gambling
Summary of the Facts
A.________ SAS, a company based abroad, operates a platform for digital trading cards (NFT) and online games that allow for winnings under "A.________.com". The Inter-Cantonal Gaming Supervision Gespa ordered the blocking of the domain in Switzerland, as the offered online games require authorization. Complaints and objections against this remained unsuccessful in the lower courts; A.________ SAS filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Court examined the admission requirements and found that the complaint was submitted in a timely and proper manner. The lower court is considered inter-cantonal and final, so the complaint is admissible. The request to directly revoke the blocking order was not considered due to the devolutive effect. The Federal Court applies the law ex officio and focuses on the alleged defects, unless there are obvious violations of the law. The Gaming Act (BGS) requires the authorization of certain gambling games to ensure their safety and public benefit. Online games without the corresponding authorization must be blocked. The complainant did not dispute the economic dependence between the sold digital trading cards and the online games. The Federal Court confirmed the lower court's decision that a monetary stake and a monetary gain exist within the meaning of Art. 3 lit. a BGS. Since the complainant did not possess a valid authorization for its gambling games, the Federal Court confirmed the legality of the blocking of the domain.
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaint is dismissed, and the court costs are imposed on the complainant. The ruling will be delivered to the participants in the proceedings and the competent authorities.
5D_51/2025: Decision on the alleged denial of justice/delay in justice proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The complainant filed a complaint for denial of justice or delay in justice against the Cantonal Court of Lucerne. The background was a dispute regarding two requests for disqualification against judges of the District Court of Kriens, which were partially denied. The Cantonal Court of Lucerne decided on the matter, rendering the federal court proceedings moot.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
5A_914/2025: Inadmissibility
Summary of the Facts
A.________ Sàrl was declared bankrupt with immediate effect by the decision of the President of the District Court of La Côte on October 3, 2025. Against this decision, A.________ Sàrl filed a complaint with the cantonal court on October 9, 2025, requesting the provisional withdrawal of enforceability (suspensive effect), which was rejected by the President of the cantonal court on October 10, 2025. A.________ Sàrl subsequently filed a complaint with the Federal Court on October 21, 2025.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
4A_312/2025: Inadmissibility of a complaint regarding commercial register blocking
Summary of the Facts
The procedure concerns a dispute over ownership and control of A.________ AG and B.________ AG. Both parties claim to be sole shareholders of B.________ AG. A.________ AG filed a lawsuit with the Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich and requested precautionary measures, including a blocking of the commercial register. The Commercial Court dismissed A.________ AG's requests and instead upheld the defendant's counter-request, which established commercial register blocks in favor of its registrations.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
1C_403/2024: Ruling regarding building permit for a mobile phone facility outside the building zone
Summary of the Facts
Sunrise GmbH applied for the renovation of an existing mobile phone facility on a traffic area outside the building zone in the municipality of Lüsslingen-Nennigkofen, which required an exception permit according to Art. 24 RPG. The objections raised against it, including from A.________, were rejected by the cantonal and municipal authorities. A.________ appealed the decisions to the Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn, which rejected the complaints. With a complaint in public law to the Federal Court, A.________ requested the annulment of the building permit and the remand of the case to the lower courts.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
7F_46/2025: Request for revision against a federal court ruling
Summary of the Facts
The applicant A.________ requested the revision of the ruling of the Swiss Federal Court of July 15, 2025 (7B_415/2025). The Federal Court had previously not admitted the complainant's complaint due to an obvious lack of reasoning. In the request for revision, A.________ attempted to justify why the ruling should be reviewed.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
4D_226/2025: Non-admission of the complaint
Summary of the Facts
The complainant submitted a complaint to the Federal Court after the Cantonal Court of Thurgau dismissed her complaint against a legal opening decision of the District Court of Frauenfeld. The dispute concerned the definitive legal opening.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
1C_670/2023: New construction of a two-family house in Sachseln: Complaint in public law matters
Summary of the Facts
E.________ applied in 2019 for a building permit for the new construction of a two-family house in Sachseln, with a reduction of the prescribed number of floors and distance regulations. The local council granted a building permit in 2020 as well as the exception permits. Neighbors raised objections, which were ultimately dismissed by the local council and later by the administrative court. The government council revoked the permits, whereupon the administrative court upheld the complaint of the builder. The complainants brought the case to the Federal Court.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
2C_247/2025: Ruling on the issuance of a residence permit (hardship application)
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, an Iranian national, has been in Switzerland since 1986 due to an asylum application. He obtained a settlement permit through a marriage with a Swiss citizen, which was later revoked due to professional fraud against social welfare authorities. Several attempts to obtain a residence permit or asylum status failed. Due to enforcement obstacles, he was granted provisional admission in 2022. The complainant again applied for a residence permit in 2023 based on a hardship case, which was denied.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
2C_685/2025: Decision on the renewal of a residence permit – Non-admission due to obvious inadmissibility
Summary of the Facts
The Kosovar national A.________, originally holding a residence permit EU/EFTA, which was lawfully revoked, applied for the renewal of a residence and work permit in Switzerland. The application was rejected by the cantonal Office for Migration and Integration. The cantonal authorities also rejected his objection and complaint against this decision. A.________ filed a complaint in public law to the Federal Court.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
2C_514/2025: Ruling on the non-renewal of the residence permit and expulsion
Summary of the Facts
The Turkish national A.________ entered Switzerland in 2023 after marrying a resident compatriot in 2022. The marital community was separated on December 1, 2023. The Migration Office of the Canton of Solothurn refused to extend his residence permit and ordered his expulsion from Switzerland and the Schengen area. After an unsuccessful complaint to the Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn, he filed a complaint in public law to the Federal Court, which examined his application for a residence permit.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
2D_10/2024: Illegality of a contract award in public procurement
Summary of the Facts
A.________ AG, as the second-placed bidder in the procurement process of the municipality of St. Moritz for electrical installations, contested the award to the ARGE B.________ due to violations of the collective labor agreement by member D.________ AG. After an initial rejection by the Federal Court, the Administrative Court of the Canton of Graubünden conducted additional factual clarifications and again dismissed the complaint. It argued that D.________ AG had no knowledge of the later identified violations at the time of the award. A.________ AG filed a subsidiary constitutional complaint with the Federal Court, which classified the award as illegal.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
5A_42/2025: Ruling on the property law dispute and cost consequences in divorce
Summary of the Facts
The parties, A.________ (complainant) and B.________ (respondent), divorced after 20 years of marriage. The District Court of Zurich regulated the ancillary consequences of the divorce, including property claims, adult support, and post-marital support. A.________ contested the partial regulations, whereby the Cantonal Court of Zurich reduced the post-marital support and dismissed the remaining points of the appeal. In the present complaint, A.________ questioned the property law dispute as well as the cost consequences.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
2C_233/2025: Refusal to extend the residence permit of a Kosovar national after divorce
Summary of the Facts
The Kosovar national A.________ lived in Switzerland since 2019 after marrying a Slovenian national and held a temporary residence permit. The marriage was divorced in 2023, and A.________ subsequently applied for an extension of his residence permit, which was rejected by the Migration Office of the Canton of Zurich. He appealed against the negative decisions of the Security Directorate and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich to the Federal Court.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
7B_864/2025: Decision on the non-admission order and non-admission of a complaint
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court examined a complaint in criminal matters directed against the non-admission order of the Regional Public Prosecutor's Office of Bern-Mittelland and the related decision of the Cantonal Court of Bern. The complaint was deemed obviously inadmissible, as the requirements for legal standing were not met and no formal objections were raised. The complainant's request for legal aid was also rejected.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
9C_207/2025: Ruling on the challenge of a discretionary assessment
Summary of the Facts
A.________ AG (formerly B.________ AG) disputed the discretionary assessment by the cantonal tax office of Zurich for the tax period 2021. The company had not submitted a timely tax return in either the Canton of Zurich or the Canton of Thurgau despite reminders. Consequently, the tax office of Zurich made a discretionary assessment, which was contested by the company as null and void. The lower courts dismissed the objection due to late justification and other legal requirements. The issue before the Federal Court was the question of the nullity of the discretionary assessment of the tax office of Zurich.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
6B_365/2025: Severe bodily injuries due to negligence
Summary of the Facts
On February 22, 2018, the employee C.________ suffered serious injuries in a work accident at the vineyard of A.________, resulting in the amputation of the right arm and part of the ear. The accident occurred while working with a prototype forestry machine whose safety devices had been removed. A.________ and B.________ were convicted of serious bodily injury due to negligence.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
2C_436/2023: Decision regarding dog ownership and classification into breed type list II in the Canton of Zurich
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ keeps his dog B.________ in the Canton of Zurich. Due to external characteristics, the dog was classified by the cantonal authorities into breed type list II, which includes potentially dangerous breeds and whose ownership is prohibited in the Canton of Zurich. The cantonal veterinary office ordered the definitive seizure of the dog unless A.________ rehomes the dog or moves away within the deadline. A.________ contested this all the way to the Federal Court, arguing that the classification was arbitrary and violated his fundamental right to personal freedom.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
1C_709/2025: Ruling on the authorization procedure and request for disqualification
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a criminal complaint and a later supplementary request against B.________, who is a caseworker with prosecutorial powers. He also requested her disqualification. The prosecution chamber of the Canton of St. Gallen combined these procedures and denied the authorization for prosecution as well as the treatment of the request for disqualification.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
2C_79/2025: Ruling on the extension of study time and access to files under the Disability Equality Act
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, A.________, suffers from cognitive impairments following a traumatic brain injury and has been admitted to the Master's program in Environmental Natural Sciences at ETH Zurich since 2019. After reaching the maximum study time, he applied for an extension of three and a half years under the Disability Equality Act (BehiG). ETH Zurich granted him an extension of two semesters and set conditions for a further extension. Furthermore, A.________ requested access to files in previous proceedings, which was denied. The Federal Administrative Court confirmed ETH Zurich's decision regarding the extension of study time and rejected the request for access to files.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
8C_334/2025: Causal connection in an accident with shoulder injuries
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, A.________, suffered a work accident on September 23, 2021, during which he fell on his right shoulder and back, sustaining contusions. The Swiss Accident Insurance (CNA) recognized benefits until June 5, 2022, but denied further payments on the grounds that the health complaints were no longer in a natural causal relationship with the accident. After a judicial expert opinion, the lower court awarded benefits to the complainant until September 21, 2024. The CNA appealed against this.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
7B_866/2025: Ruling on non-admission in criminal proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Court against two non-admission orders of the Statthalteramt of the District of Pfäffikon with the Cantonal Court of Zurich, which rejected them on August 22, 2025. The complainant subsequently filed a complaint in criminal matters to the Federal Court.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
8F_17/2025: Non-admission of a request for revision regarding unemployment insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a request for revision with the Federal Court against its ruling of September 19, 2025 (8C_495/2025) concerning unemployment insurance. The applicant was asked to pay a deposit of CHF 500, which he did not provide either within the original deadline or within a granted extension.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
7B_991/2025: Inadmissibility of a late complaint against a non-admission order
Summary of the Facts
The complainant submitted a complaint to the Federal Court against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Zug, I. Complaint Division, of August 19, 2025. This decision concerned the non-admission of a criminal proceeding by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zug. However, the complainant's complaint was filed late, leading to non-admission.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
1C_713/2025: Decision regarding authorization proceedings
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a criminal complaint against B.________, a former public prosecutor, as well as against employees of the Cantonal Police of St. Gallen. He accused them of arbitrariness, racism, and abuse of office. The prosecution chamber of the Canton of St. Gallen denied the authorization to initiate a criminal proceeding.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
1C_310/2025: Ruling on the complaint against a road construction project involving expropriations
Summary of the Facts
The landowner A.________ opposes a road construction project of the cantonal road No. 55 in the municipality of Wolfhalden, which provides for renovation and expansion work and involves expropriations and temporary claims on her parcel. The lower courts, including the Cantonal Court of Appenzell Outer Rhodes, dismissed the complaint. A.________ challenged this before the Federal Court with a complaint in public law matters.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
2C_676/2025: Decision regarding a supervisory notice and the dismissal of a procedure due to withdrawal
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ had submitted a supervisory notice against lawyer B.________ to the Bar Commission of the Canton of Aargau, which was dismissed as unfounded. Her subsequent complaint to the Administrative Court of the Canton of Aargau was not dealt with materially, as she, as the notifier, had no party rights and was therefore not legitimized. After she did not want to pay her cost deposit and ultimately withdrew the complaint, the Administrative Court dismissed the procedure as completed without imposing procedural costs. The complainant appealed against this decision to the Federal Court.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
5A_784/2025: Inadmissibility of the complaint regarding the annulment of a bankruptcy decision
Summary of the Facts
A.________ SA was declared bankrupt at the request of the Cassa cantonale di compensazione AVS/AI/IPG by the decision of the first-instance court on May 15, 2025. After an appeal to the cantonal appeal authority was rejected, A.________ SA in liquidation filed a complaint in civil matters with the Federal Court, aiming to have the case returned to the lower court for a new assessment and to suspend the execution of the bankruptcy decision.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
5A_910/2025: Order regarding alleged denial of justice/delay in justice by the Cantonal Court of Lucerne in connection with a request for disqualification
Summary of the Facts
The complainant was involved in several enforcements by B.________ AG and filed a lawsuit and complaint before the District Court of Kriens, led by two district judges. A request for disqualification against the district judges was dismissed. The complainant then filed a complaint with the Cantonal Court of Lucerne and claimed denial of justice and delay in justice before the Federal Court. The Cantonal Court has since decided on the complaint, rendering the federal court proceedings moot.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
4A_556/2025: Non-admission of a complaint against an arbitration ruling of the Tribunal Arbitral du Sport (TAS)
Summary of the Facts
A professional football club filed a complaint against an arbitration ruling of the Tribunal Arbitral du Sport (TAS), which confirmed a previous decision of the Players' Status Chamber of FIFA. The complaint was deemed obviously inadmissible by the Federal Court, as it was not submitted in a timely manner.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
4A_510/2025: Non-admission of a complaint regarding a request for revision
Summary of the Facts
The complainant contests a decision of the Cantonal Court of Lucerne of August 22, 2025, in which a request for revision was dismissed. The Federal Court examined the admissibility of the complaint and decided not to admit it due to lack of timely and sufficient reasoning.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
2C_127/2025: Revocation of a settlement permit and issuance of a residence permit
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a Turkish national, has been residing in Switzerland since 1988 and has held a settlement permit since 1997. Due to various criminal convictions, significant debt management, and ongoing social welfare dependence, his settlement permit was revoked and replaced with a residence permit. A.________ cited health issues and contested the downgrade by the Office for Migration and Integration of the Canton of Aargau as well as the prior dismissal of his complaint before the Federal Court.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
8C_678/2025: Ruling on the complaint regarding precautionary measures in the field of unemployment insurance
Summary of the Facts
The complainant requested precautionary measures in the context of the previous delay complaint procedure regarding the review of her claim for unemployment benefits. The cantonal court rejected the request, as the complainant had not fulfilled her cooperation obligation, the urgency was self-inflicted, and thus no super-provisional measures appeared necessary.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
1C_687/2025: Ruling regarding the voting complaint on the popular initiatives
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a voting complaint with the government council of the Canton of Appenzell Outer Rhodes concerning the popular votes on November 30, 2025, regarding two popular initiatives. She requested the cancellation of the votes or the annulment of the voting results. The government council rejected her complaint, to the extent it considered it, and imposed procedural costs on her amounting to CHF 500.--. A.________ then filed a complaint with the Federal Court and reiterated her legal requests.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
2C_350/2025: Decision on the downgrade of a residence permit to a settlement permit
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a national of B.________ who has lived in Switzerland since 1990, held a settlement permit, which was revoked due to his long-lasting and significant dependence on social welfare (over CHF 382,000 in debts) by the Migration Service of the Canton of Neuchâtel and replaced with a residence permit. The complainant unsuccessfully sought to maintain his settlement permit without conditions and appealed against the downgrade of this permit to the Federal Court until the end.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
1C_170/2025: Decision of the Federal Court regarding a building application outside the building zone (non-admission)
Summary of the Facts
The complainant intended to make structural adjustments on a parcel in the agricultural zone of the municipality of Seewis in the Prättigau. The original building permit was granted on December 4, 2020. Unauthorized construction work occurred, leading to a construction stop. Inspections and correspondence took place repeatedly. The municipal council of Seewis rejected the post-approval of the amended construction projects and ordered the restoration of the lawful state. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Graubünden dismissed the complainant's appeal against this decision. The complainant then turned to the Federal Court.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
2C_242/2025: Complaint against the refusal of a declaratory order and access to files by ETH Zurich
Summary of the Facts
A.________, now excluded from the Master's program, requested a declaratory order on specific questions regarding organizational and study-related aspects at ETH Zurich as well as access to files from earlier proceedings.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.