Latest Rulings of the Federal Court
Here you will find the most recent rulings of the Federal Court (BGer) from bger.ch. For the first three rulings, we present detailed summaries including facts, considerations, and dispositions. For the further rulings, you will find a summary of the facts. The complete summaries of all rulings are available on the Lexplorer portal. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest rulings tailored to your areas of law.
1C_339/2024: Decision regarding a road project in the canton of Ticino
Summary of the Facts
The complaint relates to a road project in the canton of Ticino for the redesign of the connection between Via Ciani and Via Sonvico, with the planned construction of a roundabout over the Cassarate River and an associated elevated bicycle and pedestrian bridge. Owners of the adjacent property, affected by partial expropriation and construction measures, have filed a complaint based on violations of constitutional rights as well as technical and planning issues. The project was partly modified through objections at the cantonal level and partly before the cantonal administrative court, particularly regarding the construction schedule.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1**: The Federal Court examines the admissibility of the complaint under the conditions of Art. 82-89 BGG. The complaint is generally admissible. - **E.2**: Insufficiently substantiated allegations, particularly regarding alternative route options or blanket criticism of project planning, are considered inadmissible. - **E.3**: The complaint regarding the violation of the right to be heard is dismissed. The cantonal instance has adequately engaged with the technical arguments of the opposing party and has exercised its discretion in accordance with the law. - **E.4**: The planning of the bridge is examined in terms of public interest and overarching regional planning. The Federal Court confirms the interest in promoting mobility and dismisses the criticism of the complainants. - **E.5**: The bridge is partly criticized under the aspect of water protection law (Art. 38 para. 1 and 2 GSchG). The Federal Court emphasizes that the authorization of the roundabout and the additional water coverage was inadequately examined. - **E.6**: Criticism regarding the expansion of Via Sonvico is rejected, as the necessary planning documents sufficiently justified that the adjustments to the road are in the public interest and were legally decided. - **E.7**: The Federal Court partially annuls the decision of the lower instance and instructs it to re-examine the technical and legal aspects of the water protection regulation.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint is partially upheld, and the decision of the lower instance is annulled, with a new assessment ordered.
9C_369/2025: Qualification of patents as private or business assets
Summary of the Facts
A.A.________ and B.A.________ (the taxpayers) were contacted in 2015 regarding a tax assessment relating to the tax period 2010. The Solothurn tax office assumed that the taxpayer had acquired patents from C.________ GmbH and transferred them from business assets to private assets before contributing them to D.________ AG. This led to significant back tax claims, which were subsequently handled by various instances. The Solothurn tax court ultimately confirmed the back tax claims, after which the taxpayers filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
(E.1-3) The Federal Court clarified the procedural prerequisites and stated that both the previous and current rulings of the tax court were verifiable, as the respective decisions formed a unit. (E.4) The Federal Court examined whether the taxpayer had engaged in self-employment between 2009 and 2010 and whether the patents belonged to business assets. It concluded that the lower instance had not presented any new facts or factual clarifications that supported the qualification of the patents as business assets. (E.4.3) Since the burden of proof for tax-increasing facts lies with the tax administration and it could not demonstrate a business allocation of the patents, the Federal Court ultimately qualified the patents as private assets. (E.5) Since the issue of the qualification of the patents was already decisive, further claims by the complainants did not need to be examined.
Summary of the Disposition
The Federal Court upheld the complaint, annulled the rulings of the lower instance, and imposed court costs as well as a party compensation to the Solothurn tax office.
1C_420/2024: Building application for two mixed-use buildings in Lausanne – Examination of noise protection requirements and public display requirements
Summary of the Facts
A construction project in Lausanne involved the demolition of existing buildings and the new construction of two mixed-use buildings. After an initial court proceeding, the Federal Court annulled the project in 2019 due to insufficient consideration of noise protection measures for premises with worthy use (LUS). A revised plan was submitted in 2020 and approved by the responsible city administration and cantonal authorities. The current dispute concerns compliance with noise protection requirements and whether the subsequent changes to planning and design should have been subjected to a public display again.
Summary of the Considerations
- E.1: The complaint is admissible, as it is directed against a final cantonal decision. The complainants are personally affected by the contested decision. - E.3: The assessment of the lack of public display for the newly revised construction plans is not arbitrary, as the changes made were only minor and did not present new impairments to neighbor rights. - E.4: The cantonal law regarding the requirements for healthiness (ventilation and lighting) was correctly applied. - E.5: The provisions regarding planting requirements (planting of trees) on the building plot were met; in particular, the proposed number and planting method are sufficient. - E.6: The number of permissible floors according to planning specifications is adhered to, as despite a variation in the number of floors, the building height and the land use coefficient comply with the regulations. - E.7: The Federal Court found that the noise protection requirements are met by the planned construction and traffic measures, and the window projections on the south fronts were correctly treated as "fixed" and thus as components of the facade. There is no violation of federal law.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint is rejected, and the court costs of CHF 4,000 are imposed on the complainants. Additionally, the builder D.________ SA is awarded compensation of CHF 3,000.
7B_743/2025: Obligation of the public prosecutor's office to be present at appeal hearings
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ was convicted by the District Court of Zurich and sentenced to a total prison term of 38 months as well as the revocation of a conditional release. He appealed against this judgment, limited to the sentencing. The Cantonal Court of Zurich confirmed the first-instance judgment, although the public prosecutor's office did not appear at the appeal hearing. Before the Federal Court, the complainant argued that the absence of the public prosecutor's office violated his right to a fair trial.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_246/2025: Authorization for prosecution against members of the Zurich cantonal police
Summary of the Facts
The ruling deals with the refusal of authorization for prosecution against four members of the Zurich cantonal police by the Cantonal Court of Zurich. The criminal complaints relate to a police operation on March 4, 2024, at the return center in Urdorf, during which allegations of abuse of office, coercion, theft, and forgery were made. The complaint in the present case was filed by two individuals with the Federal Court after the Cantonal Court did not grant authorization for prosecution.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_315/2023: Ruling on the prohibition of double taxation between cantons and tax sovereignty for the tax period 2018
Summary of the Facts
The ruling concerns a tax dispute between A.________, the Cantonal Tax Office of Zurich, and the tax administration of the canton of Graubünden for the tax period 2018. A.________ reported changing his residence from Zurich to Graubünden at the end of 2018. Both cantons claimed tax sovereignty, leading to double taxation. The tax sovereignty decision of the canton of Zurich was not contested. The disputed issue concerns the forfeiture of the right to appeal and the forfeiture of the taxation right of the canton of Zurich.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_338/2024: Project for a road system adjustment
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court dealt with a cantonal road project in Ticino for adjusting traffic between the municipalities of Canobbio, Lugano, and Porza. The project particularly included the construction of a large roundabout (Rotonda Rugì) on the Cassarate River as well as a pedestrian and cyclist bridge above it. An environmental organization (A.________) had challenged the project for environmental reasons and alleged legal violations. The lower instances had approved the project without adequate involvement of the Federal Office for the Environment (BAFU).
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.