Latest Judgments of the Federal Court

Summary of the facts

The complainant appealed against the dismissal of a request by the Cantonal Court of Thurgau, in which she had requested a waiver of costs regarding legally established procedural fees and a request for recusal. Furthermore, the Cantonal Court announced that further submissions without legally relevant aspects would remain unanswered. The complaint was directed at the Federal Court.

Summary of the facts

The complainant was initially placed in the B.________ clinic with medical admission and subsequent decisions for custodial reasons. After several unsuccessful requests for release, the Cantonal Court of Graubünden dismissed a renewed complaint. The complainant then appealed to the Federal Court.

Summary of the facts

The complainant A.________ filed a complaint against several decisions of the Public Prosecutor regarding non-commencement and discontinuation at the Cantonal Court of Schwyz. This court did not consider the complaint. Subsequently, A.________ appealed to the Federal Court.

Summary of the facts

The B.________ GmbH initiated debt collection proceedings against the complainant, against which she filed a complaint. The lower courts, the District Court of Kulm and subsequently the Cantonal Court of Aargau, dismissed the complaints to the extent that they were considered. The complainant then filed a civil complaint 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 injury. The lower court (Cantonal Court of Bern) ordered a seven-year deportation and rejected A.________'s appeal against the deportation. The Federal Court assesses the complaint in criminal matters from A.________, who is challenging the deportation and its entry in the Schengen Information System (SIS).

Summary of the facts

A.________ and B.________ are the parents of a child, C.________, for whom a regulated visitation arrangement has existed since a divorce agreement. Following repeated violations of contact rights by the mother and due to high conflict potential between the parents, the KESB implemented various measures, including supervised visits and the ordering of a parenting capacity assessment. The mother opposed these measures, including a request for recusal, which was denied. The contested decision of the Cantonal Court 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 VAT 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 lit. 15 VAT Act). This led to a VAT correction of CHF 79,500. The association argued that it only 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 dated October 20, 2025, concerning the recovery of compensation for official defense. The Federal Court subsequently opened procedure 7B_1250/2025. The complainant declared in a submission dated December 6, 2025, the complete withdrawal of the complaint.

Summary of the facts

The Kosovo national A.________ (born 1987) had lived in Switzerland since December 2021 due to a marriage with a compatriot entitled to settle, after several deportations. Following the departure of his wife 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 Cantonal Court of Aargau (4th Chamber) dated September 2, 2025. In a letter dated December 11, 2025, the complainant withdrew the complaint.

Summary of the facts

The complainant had submitted a complaint to the Cantonal Court of Thurgau and requested the recusal of all members of the Cantonal Court. The Cantonal Court then ordered a cost advance of CHF 800, along with the note on the possibility of applying for free legal aid. The complainant appealed against this order to the Federal Court and simultaneously requested suspensive effect.

Summary of the facts

The B.________ AG requested provisional legal opening from the District Court of Zurich, which was rejected by the single judge on April 22, 2025. The Cantonal Court of Zurich overturned this decision on October 23, 2025, and returned the matter for a new decision to the District Court. A.________ then filed a complaint with the Federal Court on November 25, 2025.

Summary of the facts

The complainant, a member of the B.________ association, challenged a statute amendment that concerned the complete separation of the association from the C.________ foundation and the removal of its consent requirement for the statute amendment under Art. 19 para. 1 of the association's statutes. The lower courts dismissed the lawsuit, after which the complainant filed a civil complaint with the Federal Court. She requested that the association 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 at the repeal of measures imposed against A.________, the suspension of her file, medical care, and conditional release.

Summary of the facts

A.________ requested the waiver of court costs amounting to CHF 570.- from the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich, which were imposed on him in a previous procedure. After the rejection of his application by the Administrative Court and the Central Collection Agency of the Cantonal Court of Zurich, A.________ appealed to the Federal Court and filed a complaint.

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 consider his complaint against the non-commencement decision of the Public Prosecutor of Schwyz dated August 21, 2025.

Summary of the facts

A guardianship with income and asset management was established for the complainant in September 2022. The KESB Winterthur approved the report and the accounts of the guardian, setting a compensation of CHF 6,000 and flat expenses of CHF 400. The District Council of Winterthur dismissed a complaint in this regard. The Cantonal Court reduced the expenses to the actually necessary costs and confirmed the compensation setting otherwise. The complainant appealed to the Federal Court but did not substantively address a specific violation of law.

Summary of the facts

The complainant, divorced father of a daughter born in 2015, requested the KESB Birstal to change the guardian for his daughter, who, however, expressed a preference for the previous guardian to remain. The KESB rejected the request, as did the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft, which largely did not consider the father's complaint. The complainant brought his concerns to the Federal Court, including a referral to another court or an out-of-canton authority, as well as a "provisional custody transfer."

Summary of the facts

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

Summary of the facts

The present case concerns the ordering of a sequester on an account of the B.________ company at the F.________ SA bank by the Tribunal de première instance de Genève. The opposition against this sequester was upheld by the lower court (Court de justice des Kantons Genève, Civil Chamber), leading to the lifting of the sequester. A.________, who originally requested the sequester, filed a complaint with the Federal Court. She alleged, 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 of the Vice-President of the Cour de justice des Kantons Genève dated September 4, 2025. She was required to make an advance payment of CHF 2,000 by November 13, 2025, but was granted an extended and non-extendable deadline until December 5, 2025. On that date, she submitted a request for free legal aid, justified by her over-indebtedness and the lack of means of her only shareholder.

Summary of the facts

The A.________ GmbH filed a challenge action, which was deemed inadmissible by the District Court Höfe on May 2, 2025, due to a rejected request for an extension. The A.________ GmbH subsequently appealed to the Cantonal Court of Schwyz, which was dismissed by decision on August 29, 2025, to the extent that it was considered. The complainant then 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 of EUR 1.6 million to secure economic advantages in transport projects in Qatar for A.________ AG. As part 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 these data, which was partially approved by the Cantonal Coercive Measures Court in Bern. A.________ AG filed a complaint with the Federal Court against this decision.

Summary of the facts

A.________ applied in June 2020 for a Covid-19 loan of CHF 50,000 for the E.________ GmbH, which 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 forgery. He denied the allegations, argued a factual error, and claimed not to have intended or sought any advantages.

Summary of the facts