New Federal Court rulings from 19.12.2025

4A_49/2025: Decision on the interpretation and application of Art. 82 and 163 OR in a dispute over a real estate purchase agreement

Summary of Facts

The A.________ SA sold several ownership units to B.________ SA according to a notarial deed on August 22, 2019. The property was to be fully renovated, with a clause guaranteeing that the annual net return would not fall below CHF 355,200 for two years; otherwise, the difference would have to be compensated. A clause also stipulated a contractual penalty of CHF 250,000 in case of non-fulfillment by the deadline. Due to delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the originally scheduled handover date was postponed from June 30, 2020, to September 30, 2020. After further discrepancies, the seller unilaterally declared the purchase contract null and void on October 12, 2020, which led to lawsuits from both parties.

Summary of Considerations

The jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the compliance with the prerequisites for appeal are established. The Federal Court states that it decides on violations of federal law (Art. 95 and 106 BGG). It only examines the alleged legal violations, except in the case of obvious errors. The court of first instance found that the complete renovation of the building was a prerequisite for the handover. The seller had not performed her obligation at the agreed time, which is why the contractual penalty according to the notarial deed had to be paid. The seller claims that the assessment of the evidence was arbitrary. She had fulfilled 95%, which would have allowed for a handover. The Federal Court rejected this, as the completion did not occur, which was essential for a handover. Regarding the application of Art. 82 OR, the Federal Court holds that the seller could not offer any consideration due to her incomplete fulfillment of her obligations. The seller argues that the Covid-19 pandemic made it impossible for her to fulfill her duties (Art. 163 OR). The Federal Court considers the allegation of the court of first instance justified, as the seller did not adequately substantiate the argument.

Summary of Ruling

The appeal was dismissed, and the court costs were imposed on A.________ SA. Thus, the original decision remains in effect.

7B_541/2025: Judgment on the non-initiation of criminal proceedings

Summary of Facts

The association A.________ filed a criminal complaint for serious bodily harm, aiding and abetting, and incitement. The public prosecutor's office ordered the non-initiation on May 22, 2025. The High Court of the Canton of Bern decided not to consider the association's appeal in a ruling on June 27, 2025. The association appealed to the Federal Court.

Summary of Considerations

The Federal Court examines the admissibility of the appeal. It is submitted in a timely and proper manner (Art. 100 para. 1 and Art. 42 para. 1 BGG). The appeal concerns the association's entitlement to participate in the proceedings, for which the appellant is entitled to appeal under the Star practice. According to Art. 393 para. 1 lit. a StPO, the non-initiation of criminal proceedings can be contested. Under current law, complainants are not parties to the criminal proceedings and therefore have no comprehensive rights (Art. 301 para. 3 StPO). The appellant argued that he was affected by an unlawful non-initiation according to Art. 105 para. 2 StPO and is therefore entitled to appeal. The Federal Court states that merely filing a complaint does not grant further rights. The appellant does not adequately substantiate further grievances, so they cannot be considered (Art. 42 para. 1 and 2 as well as Art. 106 para. 2 BGG). The appeal is to be dismissed, as no legal error can be attributed to the court of first instance and the requests of the appellant do not concern worthy interests.

Summary of Ruling

The association's appeal was dismissed, and the court costs were imposed on it.

8F_18/2025: Judgment on a request for revision regarding unemployment insurance

Summary of Facts

The applicant A.________ filed a request for revision against a previous judgment of the Federal Court (8C_422/2025 of September 15, 2025), which concerned unemployment insurance. Following a decision on October 31, 2025, and rejection of a request for free legal assistance, the applicant was required to pay a cost advance within a grace period of 10 days. The grace period ended on November 17, 2025. The applicant did not pay the required advance.

Summary of Considerations

The decision on the grace period was delivered to the applicant on November 6, 2025, so the deadline expired on November 17, 2025. The applicant did not pay the cost advance either within the set deadline or within the grace period, which according to Art. 62 para. 3 BGG leads to the fact that the request for revision cannot be considered according to the regulations of the simplified procedure (Art. 108 para. 1 lit. a BGG). Court costs are waived (Art. 66 para. 1 sentence 2 BGG), but the applicant can no longer expect this legal benefit in the future unless there are changes in the submissions and appeals.

Summary of Ruling

The court decided that the request for revision will not be considered and no court costs will be incurred.

6B_604/2025: Inadmissibility of appeal in criminal matters

Summary of Facts

In the present case, A.________ lodged an appeal against a judgment of the Cantonal Court of Valais, Cour pénale II, of June 24, 2025, regarding the allegations of "faux dans les titres" and "faux commis dans l’exercice de fonctions publiques" against the intimated B.________ and C.________, who were sentenced to conditional fines in the first instance ruling of the District Court of Entremont (of April 23, 2023) but were later acquitted by the Cantonal Court of Valais. Civil claims of the appellant were rejected in all instances.