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 including facts, considerations, and rulings. 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.
8C_432/2025: Dismissal of the appeal regarding supplementary benefits
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, a recipient of an invalidity pension (since December 1, 2021), applied for supplementary benefits (EL) on April 24, 2024. By decision of October 23, 2024, these were granted with effect from April 1, 2024. The appellant requested a postponement of the deadline to receive the benefits retroactively from the start of his pension payments. Since the medical evidence did not provide sufficient proof of an excusable reason for the delay, the EL service rejected the postponement. The cantonal instance confirmed this rejection.
Summary of the Considerations
The appeal meets the admissibility requirements according to Art. 90 ff. and Art. 42 LTF. The Federal Court examines the application of the law ex officio, but primarily considers the objections raised by the appealing party. The matter in dispute is whether there is a right to supplementary benefits retroactively from the start of the invalidity pension. The lower court found that the appellant had not submitted the application for supplementary benefits in a timely manner. It was examined whether there was an excusable reason for the delay according to Art. 41 LPGA. However, the medical documents did not demonstrate complete incapacity for decision-making or impossibility to seek assistance from third parties. The objection that the lower court had arbitrarily assessed the medical evidence was dismissed. The appellant's health situation was not sufficient to prove a hindrance in the sense of the law. Further objections regarding alleged violations of federal law and procedural rights did not meet the requirements for sufficient justification and were also dismissed. The appeal was assessed as obviously unfounded and dismissed in simplified proceedings according to Art. 109 para. 2 LTF. The costs of the proceedings are imposed on the appellant (Art. 66 para. 1 LTF).
Summary of the Ruling
The appellant's appeal was dismissed and he was ordered to pay the court costs.
4A_515/2025: Organizational deficiency of a stock corporation
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court dealt with the appeal of A.________ AG in liquidation against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Aargau dated September 26, 2025. The appellant was dissolved by the decision of the District Court of Baden due to an organizational deficiency, which was confirmed by the Cantonal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The present procedure is based on the dissolution of A.________ AG by the District Court of Baden due to a mandatory organizational deficiency. The appeal to the Cantonal Court was dismissed. The appellant then filed an appeal with the Federal Court. - **E.2:** The Federal Court examines the admissibility of the legal remedy ex officio. It requires that the appeal brief is sufficiently justified (Art. 42 para. 2 and Art. 106 para. 2 BGG). The appellant must refer to the considerations of the challenged decision and show how they violated the law. - **E.2.1:** The appellant neither adequately addressed the considerations of the Cantonal Court nor demonstrated a violation of the law. The arguments presented did not meet the legal requirements. - **E.2.2:** Furthermore, she presented her own view in an inadmissible manner without meeting the requirements for supplementing the facts according to Art. 99 para. 1 BGG. - **E.2.3:** The submissions regarding specific provisions of the Code of Obligations, Commercial Register Ordinance, or other foundations were therefore disregarded.
Summary of the Ruling
The Federal Court did not admit the appeal, imposed court costs on the appellant, and did not grant any party compensation.
8C_451/2025: Jurisdiction of the cantonal court in connection with claims for compensation under unemployment insurance law
Summary of the Facts
A.________ registered with the Basel-Stadt unemployment fund in 2023 for unemployment benefits. After the fund only partially granted daily allowances, A.________ made a claim for damages, which the unemployment fund did not consider in a decision dated June 23, 2025, following an initial judgment of the cantonal court. The social insurance court of the Canton of Basel-Stadt did not admit the appeal against this decision due to lack of substantive jurisdiction. The unemployment fund then appealed to the Federal Court to obtain the conduct of an appeal procedure.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Court examines jurisdiction and the prerequisites for admission ex officio (Art. 90, 91, 92 BGG). This is about a final decision in the sense of Art. 90 BGG. The unemployment fund is entitled to appeal since it is forced by the cantonal judgment to conduct an objection procedure, which it considers unnecessary. With an appeal in public law matters, legal violations according to Art. 95 ff. BGG can be asserted. The Federal Court applies the law ex officio. Claims for compensation according to Art. 78 ATSG are to be decided by the decision of the competent fund, whereby no objection procedure is to be conducted (Art. 78 para. 4 ATSG). There is a direct right of appeal against such decisions to the cantonal court (Art. 56 para. 1 ATSG). The respondent rightly appealed against the non-admission decision of the unemployment fund to the cantonal court. This should have decided directly on it. The rejection of jurisdiction by the cantonal court was unlawful. The cantonal court admits in its response that its non-admission decision was incorrect and requests the remittance of the matter for the conduct of the appeal proceedings. The Federal Court considers the appeal as obviously justified and resolves it in simplified proceedings according to Art. 109 para. 2 lit. b BGG. No court costs are charged. The unemployment fund does not receive any party compensation (Art. 66 and Art. 68 para. 3 BGG).
Summary of the Ruling
The appeal is upheld and the decision of the social insurance court is annulled, with the matter being remitted to the cantonal court for the conduct of an appeal procedure. No court costs are charged.
4A_614/2025: Inadmissibility of the appeal
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Court against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Bern, which had confirmed the granting of legal enforcement for an amount of CHF 6,923.-- plus interest. She requested a stay of execution.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_96/2024: Tax classification of compensation for unjustified immediate dismissal
Summary of the Facts
B.A.________, a former executive employee of a federal office, received compensation for unjustified immediate dismissal based on a judgment of the Federal Administrative Court. The amount of compensation was classified as taxable income by the tax administration of the Canton of Bern. The taxpayers filed objections, appeals, and finally an appeal to the Federal Court, which related to the tax period 2017.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_237/2025: Payment order and legal objection in enforcement proceedings
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was pursued by B.________ GmbH in liquidation. On September 3, 2024, the enforcement office issued a payment order in enforcement number xxx. The legal objection was raised on January 10, 2025, with the enforcement office. In parallel, A.________ filed an appeal with the Cantonal Court of Bern requesting that the enforcement be declared null and void or that it be established that the legal objection was timely. The supervisory authority dismissed the appeal on March 13, 2025. Following the withdrawal of the enforcement on October 1, 2025, and its deletion by the enforcement office, the proceedings before the Federal Court became moot.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1045/2023: Judgment on the appeal against a conviction for attempted serious bodily harm, attempted failure to provide emergency assistance, multiple pornography, and multiple depictions of violence
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was accused of severely injuring the intoxicated B.________ with an elbow strike on the night of September 29, 2019, resulting in a traumatic brain injury and other head injuries. He also left the scene without attending to the victim. In addition, he is alleged to have received and viewed six videos with prohibited content on his mobile phone between April and August 2018. The lower court convicted A.________, among other charges, of attempted serious bodily harm, attempted failure to provide emergency assistance, and other offenses, which were challenged with the present appeal to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_593/2025: Non-admission in rental law appeal proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ appealed against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Aargau dated October 23, 2025, which dismissed an appeal against the partial decision of the District Court of Zofingen dated May 5, 2025. The contentious proceedings concerned issues of passive legitimacy and the dismissal of the lawsuit against one of the respondents regarding a rental agreement.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1041/2023: Judgment concerning multiple false accusations, defamation, and slander
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ was convicted based on charges of multiple false accusations, multiple defamation, multiple slander, threats, multiple insults, and multiple disobedience to official orders. The starting point was a presidential order of the Child and Adult Protection Authority (KESB) from 2017, which suspended A.________'s visiting rights with respect to his daughters. The District Court of Schaffhausen imposed a conditional prison sentence as well as a fine, against which A.________ appealed. The Cantonal Court of Schaffhausen largely confirmed the first-instance judgment. With his appeal to the Federal Court, A.________ requested an acquittal.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_150/2024: Dismissal of the appeal regarding compensation in case of termination of a criminal investigation
Summary of the Facts
Grandmother B.________ had filed a criminal complaint against her grandson A.________ for insult and threats. After a back-and-forth regarding the withdrawal of the complaint and mediation, the criminal case was ultimately closed. A.________ had requested various compensations, particularly for economic damage and non-material damages. The lower court granted partial compensation, but not to the requested extent. A.________ then appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_422/2024: Right of special use of a balcony in condominium ownership
Summary of the Facts
The dispute concerns the right of special use of a balcony in condominium ownership of a property. The appellant claims that the balcony is assigned to his unit (A2) according to the allocation plan, while the structural reality provides for access from the neighboring unit (A3) through a door. The respondent used the balcony, which the appellant wishes to prohibit. The lower courts denied the appellant's claims and held different views on the legal situation.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_737/2025: Suspensive effect in connection with a waste law operating permit
Summary of the Facts
The Department of Construction, Transport and Environment (BVU) of the Canton of Aargau granted A.________ AG a temporary waste law operating permit. After a renewed permit renewal by the BVU in 2025, the municipality of Gebenstorf filed a complaint with the government council and requested the annulment of the permit. This complaint was assigned as a so-called leap complaint directly to the Administrative Court of the Canton of Aargau, which subsequently issued a directive ordering the suspensive effect. A.________ AG appealed to the Federal Court against this directive.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_1123/2025: Withdrawal of the appeal in the procedure regarding the establishment of parental rights
Summary of the Facts
The appellant (A.________) filed an appeal against a decision of the single judge of the Civil Court of Appeal of the Cantonal Court of Vaud, which refused to grant suspensive effect in connection with the establishment of parental rights. During the proceedings, a settlement was reached, after which A.________ withdrew her appeal.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_351/2025: Judgment on employer liability and assessment of evidence
Summary of the Facts
The plaintiff (B.________) suffered an accident on a construction site in 2008 when a cover of a ceiling opening created by an employee of the defendant (A.________ AG) broke and he fell. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was responsible for the insufficient fall protection of the ceiling opening. He sought satisfaction and interest. The Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich ordered the defendant to pay.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4F_58/2025: Judgment regarding a request for revision
Summary of the Facts
The applicant filed an appeal against a judgment of the Cantonal Court of Zurich dated July 18, 2025, which the Federal Court, however, did not admit with judgment 4D_170/2025 dated October 1, 2025. In a submission dated December 8, 2025, the applicant requested a revision of this judgment and free legal assistance in the revision procedure.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1044/2025: Validity of an electronically submitted appeal
Summary of the Facts
A.________ Inc. filed a criminal complaint against B.________ on suspicion of fraud. The public prosecutor's office of the Canton of Zurich did not take up the investigation, and the Cantonal Court of Zurich did not admit the appeal of A.________ because it was submitted electronically without a qualified signature and was submitted late by mail. A.________ then filed an appeal with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_907/2025: Judgment on the child's move abroad, custody, and maintenance
Summary of the Facts
A father requests the Federal Court to overturn a cantonal court decision that grants the mother sole custody of the child and permits the move to Germany. The father further demanded adjustments regarding the personal visitation rights and maintenance. Disputed issues included the mother's attachment tolerance, the application of the school level model for maintenance assessment, and the assessment of his visitation costs.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4F_60/2025: Judgment regarding a request for revision
Summary of the Facts
The applicant had filed an appeal against the granting of definitive legal enforcement for a tax claim and against the dismissal of her request for free legal assistance. The Cantonal Court of Zurich dismissed the appeal. The Federal Court did not consider her appeal in the proceedings 4D_172/2025 due to inadequate justification. The applicant requested with the revision request dated December 8, 2025, the review of the Federal Court judgment 4D_172/2025, which the Federal Court is now assessing.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_582/2025: Dismissal of the appeal against coercive measures
Summary of the Facts
B.________ filed a criminal complaint on July 20, 2024, against unknown persons for endangering life and property damage, as a vehicle allegedly deliberately rammed a trailer on his bicycle, which contained his son, and left the scene after the collision. A.________ was identified as the suspected driver. Subsequently, the public prosecutor's office of the Canton of Fribourg issued several coercive measures on July 22, 2024, including a mandate for presentation, house search, body and vehicle search, and seizure. The cantonal instance partially declared these measures unlawful.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_8/2026: Judgment regarding enforcement proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The appellant appealed against orders of the enforcement office Birmensdorf and the handling of his complaints by the cantonal instances, particularly regarding the maintenance of an enforcement and a seizure. The District Court of Dietikon dismissed his appeal, as did the Cantonal Court of Zurich, which also did not consider new requests and factual allegations.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1376/2025: Extension of pre-trial detention due to risk of recidivism
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.______, was arrested on April 16, 2025, due to suspicion of preparatory acts for an extended suicide directed against the parents of his former partner, and corresponding danger to others. Following an initial order for pre-trial detention by the cantonal coercive measures court and several subsequent extensions until January 15, 2026, he appealed the decision of the cantonal appeal instance that confirmed the detention extension to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_496/2025: Inadmissibility of the subsidiary constitutional appeal
Summary of the Facts
A.A.________ was acquitted by the first-instance court of the charge of obtaining unlawful social insurance or social assistance benefits. However, upon appeal by the public prosecutor's office of Neuchâtel, he was convicted by the Cantonal Court of Neuchâtel. He was accused of having lived in a de facto community with his former partner B.________, who applied for social assistance, without informing the social authorities. The benefits were unlawfully received between May 1, 2015, and August 9, 2017.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_98/2025: Revocation of driving license due to a serious violation of the Road Traffic Act
Summary of the Facts
A.________, who has held a category B driving license since 1980, committed a serious violation of the Road Traffic Act (SVG) on March 24, 2017, by exceeding the permissible maximum speed by 44 km/h, obstructing an overtaking maneuver of another vehicle, and causing a traffic accident. The Road Traffic Office of the Canton of Aargau subsequently revoked his driving license for two years. His complaints to the Department of Economic Affairs and Internal Affairs, as well as to the Administrative Court of the Canton of Aargau, were unsuccessful.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_546/2025: Admission of an appeal against an interim decision
Summary of the Facts
In the context of a debt collection process, the Solothurn-Lebern District Court on September 2, 2025, dismissed a submission by the appellant along with attachments from the files and ordered their storage in a sealed envelope. The Cantonal Court of Solothurn did not admit the appeal against this decision by the appellant in its judgment of September 24, 2025. The appellant filed an appeal to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2D_24/2025: Judgment on the subsidiary constitutional appeal regarding cost waiver and mask-wearing obligation
Summary of the Facts
The appellant requested the Federal Court to review the constitutionality of the mask-wearing obligation introduced in Switzerland during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the procedure primarily concerned the waiver of court costs for previous procedures, which had been rejected by the cantonal instances (Administrative Commission and Appeals Commission of the Cantonal Court of Zurich).
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_328/2025: Judgment on accident insurance: Causal connection and obligation to provide benefits
Summary of the Facts
A.________, born in 1964 and compulsorily insured against accident consequences with SUVA, suffered a massive polytrauma in a traffic accident on April 7, 2019. After extensive treatment and rehabilitation, a complete return to previous employment could not be achieved. The IV granted her a full pension based on a degree of disability of 100%. From August 2023, SUVA set the benefits at a degree of disability of 35% and granted an integrity compensation of 25%. The Insurance Court of the Canton of Aargau confirmed this decision.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_491/2025: Judgment regarding auction premiums in forced auctions of properties
Summary of the Facts
The appellants received auction premiums from the Opfikon enforcement office for their properties on C.________strasse xxx and D.________strasse yyy, which were sold in a forced auction. They requested the cancellation of the premiums, which was rejected by both the District Court of Bülach as the lower cantonal supervisory authority and by the Cantonal Court of Zurich as the upper cantonal supervisory authority. The appellants appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_309/2025: Judgment regarding a claim from a brokerage contract
Summary of the Facts
The appellant entered into a brokerage contract with the respondent in 2017 for the sale of a property (Castle C.________). After the termination of this contract and a new contract with another company, the respondent conducted sales negotiations with a new interested buyer in 2021, which ultimately led to the sale of the property. The respondent demanded a brokerage fee, which the appellant disputed. After partial approval of her claim by the lower courts, the appellant approached the Federal Court with the request to dismiss the claim completely.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_68/2026: Non-admission of an appeal against a custodial placement
Summary of the Facts
The appellant was placed in a clinic on December 23, 2025, by Prof. Dr. med. B.________ for custodial reasons. He appealed against this placement but failed to appear without excuse at the hearing before the Cantonal Court of Bern. This court did not admit the appeal due to the absence in its decision of January 13, 2026. The appellant then filed an appeal with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_600/2025: Inadmissibility of an appeal against an interim decision of the Cantonal Court of Graubünden
Summary of the Facts
The respondent filed a staged lawsuit with the Regional Court of Landquart (submission of the second stage on June 30, 2025). The appellants requested that this submission be dismissed as inadmissible. The Regional Court rejected this request. The appellants filed an appeal with the Cantonal Court of Graubünden against this decision, which did not admit the appeal. They then brought the matter before the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_324/2025: Judgment on a disciplinary fine for violation of professional rules by a lawyer
Summary of the Facts
A lawyer was imposed a disciplinary fine by the Bar Commission of the Canton of Aargau for violation of professional rules according to Art. 12 lit. a BGFA. The lawyer had mediated an out-of-court settlement between the accused and a minor private claimant in a criminal case. This settlement contained a clause aimed at preventing further statements from the private claimant. Following a report from the public prosecutor's office to the Bar Commission, a disciplinary fine of CHF 1,000.- was imposed, which was confirmed by the Administrative Court of the Canton of Aargau.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_69/2026: Non-admission of an appeal against an inpatient placement for assessment
Summary of the Facts
The KESB Bern placed the appellant for inpatient assessment on December 31, 2025. The appellant appealed against this but failed to appear without excuse at the hearing before the Cantonal Court of Bern, Child and Adult Protection Court. This court did not admit the appeal due to the absence in its decision of January 13, 2026. The appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Court on January 20, 2026, against this decision.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_725/2024: Inadmissibility of the indictment and partial admission of the appeal
Summary of the Facts
Various criminal charges were brought against the appellant A.________, including violation of the secrecy of manufacturing or business secrets (Art. 162 StGB), violations of the Federal Act against Unfair Competition (Art. 23 in conjunction with Art. 3 para. 1 letter a LCD), as well as serious violations of traffic rules (Art. 90 para. 2 SVG). Following the first-instance judgment, revisions were made by the cantonal instance, whereby parts of the original conviction were annulled. The appellant then filed an appeal with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.