Latest Judgments of the Federal Court
Here you will find the latest judgments of the Federal Court (BGer) from bger.ch. For the first three judgments, we present detailed summaries with facts, considerations, and dispositive parts. For the other judgments, you will find a summary of the facts. The complete summaries of all judgments are available on the Lexplorer portal. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest judgments tailored to your areas of law.
5A_1117/2025: Question of the Invalidity of Payment Orders
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed an appeal against two payment orders from the Neckertal debt collection office, which had been adjusted and correctly delivered after an initial gender mix-up. She requested a declaration of invalidity for the payment orders, which was rejected by the lower courts.
Summary of Considerations
- **E.1:** The submission is to be treated as an appeal in civil matters, as cantonal supervisory decisions regarding debt collection issues are subject to appeal regardless of the value of the dispute. - **E.2:** The obligation to provide reasoning according to Art. 42 para. 2 BGG requires a specific engagement with the considerations of the lower court. - **E.3:** The lower court found that the original gender mix-up had been corrected and that there was no risk of confusion. Therefore, the payment orders are not invalid. - **E.4:** The appeal is not admitted to the extent that it contains polemical or criminal accusations; these are not part of the proceedings. - **E.5:** The appeal is inadmissible or inadequately substantiated, as the appellant does not adequately demonstrate how the corrected payment orders could have misled the parties involved. - **E.6:** The request for suspensive effect is not addressed, as it has become moot. - **E.7:** Given the circumstances, the imposition of court costs is waived.
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The Federal Court does not admit the appeal and does not impose court costs. The delivery of the judgment is made to the relevant parties.
1C_447/2024: Approval of a Wind Farm with Wind Turbines
Summary of the Facts
At its core, this case concerns the approval of a wind farm with 19 wind turbines in the canton of Neuchâtel. The approval process was previously challenged legally. The Federal Court examines whether the choice of a specific type of wind turbine must be definitively made during the planning or construction approval phase or whether it can also be made later, for example after a tender.
Summary of Considerations
- **(E.1)** The appeal is fundamentally admissible in the area of public law. The Federal Court acknowledges that the procedure raises questions of fundamental importance, particularly regarding the admissibility of later determination of the turbine type. - **(E.2)** The appellant argues that the type of wind turbine does not necessarily have to be specified at the time of construction approval, provided that the planned parameters are adhered to. Factors such as technological progress may necessitate this. - **(E.2.1-2.7)** The Federal Court states that it is acceptable to select the final turbine type retrospectively if there is sufficient technical and ecological examination. Provided that it complies with the defined parameters and protective measures outlined in the previous proceedings. - **(E.3)** The appellant requests the inclusion of specified protective measures in the construction approval, which the lower court had not yet considered. The Federal Court overturns the contested judgment and refers the matter back to the lower court for re-examination.
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The dispositive part provides for the granting of the appeal, whereby the contested judgment is overturned and the matter is referred back to the cantonal court for further clarification. Additionally, compensations for party costs and court costs were regulated.
1C_465/2023: Decision on Cost Bearing and Guarantee in the Context of the Remediation of a Contaminated Landfill
Summary of the Facts
The decision concerns the remediation of a former landfill in the canton of Fribourg, which is heavily contaminated by industrial waste, particularly polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Due to exceeded limit values, a comprehensive remediation concept was developed. The parties disputed primarily over the distribution of remediation costs and the obligation for a security deposit by a responsible company.
Summary of Considerations
The three proceedings (1C_465/2023, 1C_488/2023, and 1C_219/2024) were combined due to common factual contexts. The appeals concerned, on the one hand, the distribution of remediation costs and, on the other hand, the obligation to provide a financial guarantee. The liability of the polluter according to Art. 32d LPE was discussed. It was shown that the main pollution is attributable to waste from E.________ SA, whose legal successor is A.________ SA. The city of Fribourg was classified as the main polluter in its role as the operator of the landfill, while the canton of Fribourg took on a secondary responsibility due to inadequate supervisory duties and as the landowner. The appeal by A.________ SA, stating that it is not the legal successor of the original company, was rejected. The argument that the city of Fribourg caused higher costs through the manner of landfill usage was also not deemed sufficiently substantiated. The distribution of remediation costs was carried out in proportion to the established shares of the polluter: 45% to the city of Fribourg, 25% to A.________ SA, 25% to the canton of Fribourg, and 5% to unknown third parties. The complaints regarding the amount of cost bearing were dismissed. The obligation of A.________ SA to provide a financial guarantee (Art. 32d bis LPE) was confirmed. The amount of this security was justified by the continued risk of insolvency of A.________ SA. The arguments of A.________ SA that the guarantee would violate its freedom or proportionality were dismissed. The alleged binding effect of previous assurances for a lower burden could also not be proven.
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The dispositive part rejected the appeals and distributed the procedural costs proportionally, with A.________ SA being obliged to pay a portion of the costs.
7B_1317/2025: Inadmissibility of the Appeal
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed an appeal with the Federal Court against the judgment of the Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court dated September 20, 2025, which deemed his appeal against a non-admission order and his request for recusal inadmissible. The appeal to the Federal Court was submitted outside the legally prescribed deadline.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1118/2025: Inadmissibility of the Appeal
Summary of the Facts
A.________ appealed against a non-admission order issued by the Regional Public Prosecutor's Office of the Valais on May 6, 2025. The Criminal Chamber of the Valais Cantonal Court dismissed the appeal on September 15, 2025. In response, A.________ filed an appeal with the Federal Court on October 20, 2025, along with a request for restoration of the deadline and for legal aid.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_1116/2025: Judgment Regarding Involuntary Confinement
Summary of the Facts
The appellant was involuntarily confined in Clinic C.________ on November 22, 2025, following a medical referral. The Child and Adult Protection Authority (KESB) Kreuzlingen rejected the appellant's appeal on December 4, 2025. The Cantonal Court of Thurgau confirmed this decision on December 11, 2025. The appellant subsequently appealed to the Federal Court on December 19, 2025.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_1270/2023: Dismissal of the Appeal Due to Violations of the Covid-19 Regulation
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ was repeatedly charged with violations of the Covid-19 regulation, disregarding instructions from security personnel, participating in and organizing unauthorized demonstrations against the Corona measures, and other offenses. The Cantonal Court of Lucerne confirmed the convictions from the first-instance judgment but partially reduced the penalties. A.________ contested the judgment before the Federal Court and requested an acquittal on all charges.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.