Latest Judgments of the Federal Court
Here you will find the most recent judgments of the Federal Court (BGer) from bger.ch. For the first three judgments, we present detailed summaries with facts, considerations, and dispositions. 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.
1C_712/2024: Assumption of Costs for Measures to Compensate Damage to Archaeological Heritage
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court had to assess the complaint of A.________ SA, which was directed against a decision of the Valais cantonal courts. The complainant had carried out work on its property that resulted in irreparable damage to archaeological finds from the Roman period. This property is located in an archaeological zone. The complainant was ordered by the cantonal and municipal authorities to assume the costs for the necessary archaeological measures (maximum CHF 95,000.–).
Summary of Considerations
The complaint is generally permissible according to Articles 82 et seq. BGG. The complainant has a legally protected interest and is entitled to complain. The complainant alleges a violation of the right to be heard. It argues that the municipality should have conducted a new investigation, as it continued the proceedings instead of the previously incompetent cantonal authority. This objection is dismissed, as the complainant was able to express itself multiple times and no formal violations of rules are apparent. The complainant's criticism of the allegedly erroneous determination of facts is rejected. In particular, the assertion that no archaeological damage is ascertainable or that the damage was not caused by it is purely appellatory and unfounded. The arguments regarding the alleged invalidity of the report by B.________ GmbH are dismissed. This report was commissioned by a competent authority and could be used by the municipality in the proceedings. The application of Art. 24e NHG was correctly assessed. The irreparable damage to the archaeological heritage was caused by the premature construction work, and the imposed obligation to pay for archaeological measures is lawful. No violation of the principle of protection of trust or arbitrary action by the municipality or the cantonal authorities could be established.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint of A.________ SA was dismissed, the court costs of CHF 5,000.– were imposed, and no party compensation was awarded.
4F_61/2025: Judgment on the Request for Revision
Summary of the Facts
A petitioner requests the revision of the Federal Court judgment 4D_163/2025 of October 15, 2025, in which the Federal Court did not enter into a complaint and imposed court costs on the petitioner. The petitioner raised various accusations against this judgment, requested its annulment as well as compensation of CHF 250,000.–, and invoked grounds for revision according to Articles 121 and 123 BGG. Additionally, he filed a request for recusal and requested, among other things, free legal assistance.
Summary of Considerations
The proceedings are conducted in accordance with Art. 54 para. 1 BGG in the language of the contested judgment (German). A general request for recusal against the Federal Court is institutionally not possible. Specific grounds for recusal against individual court members would need to be presented. The petitioner's request is inadmissible. The presidential order of December 23, 2025, which dismissed superprovisional measures, is not subject to appeal in accordance with Art. 32 para. 3 BGG. An appeal against this is inadmissible. The asserted grounds for revision according to Art. 121 BGG (material facts disregarded) are unfounded. The Federal Court considered the petitioner's submissions in its judgment 4D_163/2025 but did not enter into them due to insufficient justification of his complaint. Furthermore, subsequently asserted facts or evidence (Art. 123 BGG) are not legally sufficiently substantiated. Facts that arose only after the decision do not legally justify a revision. The request for revision is overall found to be unfounded, to the extent that it can be considered. Further requests from the petitioner do not fall within the subject matter of the dispute and are therefore also inadmissible. The request for free legal assistance is dismissed due to lack of prospects (Art. 64 para. 1 BGG). Court costs of CHF 500.— are imposed on the petitioner.
Summary of the Disposition
The request for revision is dismissed, as is the request for free legal assistance. Court costs are imposed.
2C_355/2025: Invalidity Declaration and Withdrawal of Identity Documents for Swiss Citizens
Summary of the Facts
In the present case, the Federal Office of Police (fedpol) requested the invalidation and withdrawal of the identity documents of a Swiss citizen who is currently abroad and subject to criminal prosecution, based on Art. 7 para. 2 lit. a of the Identity Document Act (AwG). After the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the complaint, the complainant appealed to the Federal Court.
Summary of Considerations
The Federal Court found that this is a final decision in a public law matter and that the complainant meets the formal and substantive admission requirements. The complaint is admissible. The complaint only partially meets the justification requirements of Art. 42 and Art. 106 BGG. Complaints regarding procedural guarantees, the presumption of innocence, and equality before the law were not sufficiently justified, which is why they cannot be considered. The complainant's factual objections, particularly regarding the status of the criminal investigation and the allegation of abusive use of his documents, were rejected as inadmissible or unfounded. The Federal Court confirmed that the withdrawal of the documents and the invalidation according to Art. 7 para. 2 lit. a AwG are lawful and proportionate. The withdrawal serves a public interest, namely ensuring criminal prosecution and effective enforcement of penalties in Switzerland. The complainant's assertion that the withdrawal of the documents is abusive and solely intended to enforce pre-trial detention was rejected as unfounded. The purpose of the measure corresponds to legal requirements and is not extraneous.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint was dismissed, and court costs of CHF 2,500.– were imposed on the complainant. The decision was communicated to the parties involved and the Federal Administrative Court.
4F_62/2025: Judgment Regarding the Request for Revision
Summary of the Facts
The petitioner requested the revision of Federal Court judgment 4D_169/2025, which did not enter into his original complaint. He argued that the Federal Court was biased and had overlooked essential facts. He also requested free legal assistance, superprovisional measures, and sought damages.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_719/2025: Decision on the Request for Restoring Time Limits and Advance Payment of Costs
Summary of the Facts
A.________ AG, a wealth manager with a conditional license granted by FINMA, violated requirements regarding minimum capital and equity. As a result, FINMA revoked its license and ordered liquidation and comprehensive measures for settlement. A.________ AG applied to the Federal Court for the restoration of time limits due to the non-payment of an advance payment within the deadline and the resulting non-admission decision of the Federal Administrative Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_519/2025: Judgment on the Dismissal of the Complaint Regarding Corporate Liability Claims
Summary of the Facts
B.________ SA was declared bankrupt on August 23, 2012. C.________ claimed an amount of CHF 4,920,561.80 through the assertion of her assigned corporate liability claims in a legal dispute. The bankruptcy office demanded the return of the surplus after covering costs and her collated claim and partially annulled her certificate of loss. C.________ subsequently filed complaints that were brought before the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_711/2025: Assessment of Tax Assessment Based on Discretion
Summary of the Facts
The complainants, a married couple residing in the canton of Zurich, declared an income and wealth in their 2021 tax return, which were later questioned by the Cantonal Tax Office Zurich based on communications from the Federal Tax Administration (ESTV). The ESTV discovered evidence regarding the trade of more than 100 vehicles by the complainants during an audit. Since no complete answers or evidence were submitted by the complainants, the tax office assessed them based on discretion. Contradictory and insufficient statements by the complainants led to the rejection of their appeal by all cantonal legal remedy instances.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_604/2025: Judgment on Unemployment Insurance
Summary of the Facts
The complainant filed a complaint on October 17, 2025, against a judgment of the Social Security Court of the Canton of Zurich dated August 27, 2025. During the proceedings, she was asked to pay an advance on costs, which did not happen even after a deadline was set until January 7, 2026.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_557/2025: Judgment on Occupational Pension
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, A.________, was insured under occupational pension law during his temporary assignment at G.________ AG in 2019. Due to health constraints in the context of his autism spectrum disorder and a developmental disorder, he applied for a disability pension from the occupational pension fund, after already being granted a pension benefit by the disability insurance. However, the pension fund denied its obligation to provide benefits, citing significant incapacity for work prior to the onset of the pension relationship.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_744/2025: Non-admission Decision in the Entry Permit Procedure
Summary of the Facts
The complainants, two Afghan citizens and adult children of a father settled in Switzerland, applied for an entry permit, which the Migration Office of the Canton of Zurich rejected. After an unsuccessful challenge with the cantonal security directorate, they went before the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich, which did not enter into their complaint due to the non-payment of the advance on costs. Subsequently, they appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_132/2025: Judgment Regarding the Order of a Special Investigation
Summary of the Facts
The judgment concerns a legal dispute between A.________ AG (complainant) and B.________ (respondent). B.________, who holds 49% of the share capital of A.________ AG, requested the judicial order of a special investigation according to Art. 697c and Art. 697d CO. The background involves tensions between him and the majority shareholder C.________ AG, as well as suspected breaches of duty by the organs of A.________ AG, particularly regarding the use of funds and the conduct of legal disputes. The Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich partially granted the request. A.________ AG appealed to the Federal Court against this decision.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_385/2025: Judgment on the Obligation to Provide Accident Insurance Benefits in Case of Relapses and Causal Link
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ suffered an accident-related injury (hamulus fracture) in 2007, for which Suva provided benefits. After several relapses, Suva discontinued all benefits in 2016 and later issued an integrity compensation in 2019, which was subsequently denied by the court. In 2022, A.________ reported another relapse, which Suva rejected due to lack of causal link to the original accident.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_364/2025: Refund of the Advance Payment in a Debt Enforcement Procedure
Summary of the Facts
The Swiss Confederation (complainant) initiated debt enforcement against A.________ (respondent) for a claim of CHF 3,089.55 based on a certificate of loss. After the District Court of Zofingen ruled in favor of the complainant in the enforcement proceedings, it remained unclear whether the advance payment made (CHF 250.–) should be refunded. The court of the previous instance (Cantonal Court of Aargau) denied the refund, referencing Art. 68 SchKG.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_407/2025: Rent Claim after Termination of a Lease and Application of Extension Rights
Summary of the Facts
The procedure concerns a lawsuit by the landlord A.________ AG (complainant) against the tenant B.________ AG (respondent) for payment of a higher rent for usage periods after the termination of the lease on January 31, 2014, until the respondent's move-out on February 20, 2020. A rent adjustment request was withdrawn by the complainant during the extension procedure. The Commercial Court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the original rent had continued unchanged due to the statutory regulations of extension rights.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_1128/2025: Judgment on the Calculation of the Minimum Existence in Connection with a Seizure Order
Summary of the Facts
The complainant (debtor) filed a complaint against the calculation of the minimum existence and the seizure order of the Thal-Gäu debt enforcement office. The previous instance, the supervisory authority for debt collection and bankruptcy of the Canton of Solothurn, dismissed the complaint. The complainant argued that various items were inadequately or wrongly considered in the calculation of his minimum existence.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9F_25/2025: Judgment on a Request for Revision Regarding Tax Assessments and Stock Valuations
Summary of the Facts
The judgment concerns a dispute between A.________ AG and the Cantonal Tax Office Zurich regarding the tax treatment of stock valuations and the creation of a negative reserve within the framework of state and municipal taxes as well as direct federal taxes for the tax periods 2020 to 2021. After a dismissal of the complaint by the Federal Court in judgment 9C_187/2025 and an unsuccessful request for revision (judgment 9F_19/2025), A.________ AG again requested a revision.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4F_59/2025: Dismissal of a Request for Revision Against a Previous Non-Admission Judgment
Summary of the Facts
The petitioner filed a request for revision with the Federal Court against its judgment 4D_161/2025 of October 15, 2025, in which the Federal Court did not enter into a complaint by the petitioner. The request for revision was supplemented with various requests (including for damages and recusal).
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_368/2025: Decision Regarding the Recusal Request Against Members of the District Court of Laufenburg
Summary of the Facts
The District Court of Laufenburg found the complainant A.________ guilty of various offenses in its judgment of November 28, 2023, and sentenced him. The Cantonal Court of Aargau overturned this judgment and referred the matter back to the District Court for renewed consideration. After the new hearing was established, A.________ filed a recusal request against the members of the District Court, as they had already been involved in the original judgment. The Cantonal Court of Aargau rejected the recusal request. A.________ appealed to the Federal Court seeking the annulment of this decision and the approval of his recusal request.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.