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 other 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.
5A_58/2026: Inadmissibility of the Complaint
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court had to decide on a complaint from A.________ Sagl in liquidation, which was directed against a ruling of the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Ticino. The starting point was a bankruptcy declaration issued by the single judge of the District Court of Lugano on October 8, 2025, against which the complainant had unsuccessfully appealed before the cantonal instance. The main points of contention were the existence of the requirements for the bankruptcy declaration, particularly the question of the solvency of the company.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Court analyzed the statements of the lower court. It had established that the complainant had not sufficiently substantiated its solvency, among other things due to numerous default certificates and pending debt collections. The complainant essentially presented the same arguments as before the cantonal instance, without substantially addressing its reasoning. This violates the justification requirements derived from Art. 42 para. 2 and Art. 106 para. 2 BGG. The complaint was deemed inadmissible due to insufficient justification. The procedural costs were imposed on the complainant, as it lost, while no party compensation was granted.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint was declared inadmissible, and the court costs were imposed on the complainant.
8C_287/2025: Denial of Disability Insurance Benefits due to Violation of the Duty to Mitigate Damages
Summary of the Facts
A.________, born in 1979, applied for disability insurance benefits in May 2021, citing alcohol dependency. The IV Office of Solothurn requested him, after a medical report from the Swiss Medical Assessment and Business Center (SMAB), to undergo detoxification and rehabilitation treatments, both of which were subsequently aborted. In a decision dated September 2, 2024, the IV Office denied the requested benefits. The complaint filed against this was dismissed by the Insurance Court of the Canton of Solothurn.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Court bases its decision on the facts established by the lower court, unless these are obviously incorrect or unlawful. The point of contention is the admissibility of the denial of benefits after conducting a reminder and reflection period in cases of alcohol dependency. The lower court correctly presented the applicable principles regarding disability, the evidential value of reports, and the duty to mitigate damages. In particular, the duty to mitigate damages is applicable even in the presence of a dependency syndrome. Denial of benefits is permissible after the ordered therapy has been aborted. The SMAB report confirms a dependency disorder and recommends inpatient detoxification and rehabilitation treatment. However, the complainant aborted therapy twice. The specialists saw no insurmountable obstacles to further treatment. A violation of the duty to mitigate damages by the complainant exists. The argument that he was unable to meet the requirements due to his illness is rejected. The objection regarding the authority of the RAD doctor does not influence the decision. The lower court confirmed in compliance with the law that the complainant was adequately informed about the consequences of failing to fulfill the duty to mitigate damages. The request for the granting of legal aid is rejected, as there was no prospect of success.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint was dismissed, and the request for legal aid was also denied. Furthermore, the court costs were imposed on the complainant.
7B_312/2023: Ruling on the Unsealing of Documents and Data Media in Connection with a Criminal Investigation
Summary of the Facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office III of the Canton of Zurich is conducting a criminal proceeding against attorney B.A.________ for multiple qualified unfaithful management and professional fraud in connection with the gratuitous transfer of shares of "C.________ International (IP) GmbH" to the "C.________ Foundation". During a house search, documents and electronic data were seized, the unsealing of which was ordered by the coercive measures court. The parties involved, attorney B.A.________ and A.________ AG, filed a complaint against this unsealing decision.
Summary of the Considerations
**E.1**: The complaint in criminal matters is fundamentally admissible against the final cantonal decision on the unsealing (Art. 78-80 BGG). However, A.________ AG lacks its own legally protected interest in contesting, which is why its complaint is not admitted. B.A.________ is entitled to file a complaint, as he faces an irreparable disadvantage in the sense of Art. 93 para. 1 lit. a BGG.
**E.2**: Coercive measures in criminal proceedings, such as the house search, are proportionate according to Art. 197 para. 1 lit. c and d as well as Art. 265 para. 4 StPO. The duty to produce evidence under Art. 265 para. 2 StPO was not applicable in this case due to the privilege against self-incrimination. The house search was necessary and justified, and all legal requirements were met.
**E.3**: The temporal extension of the data to be unsealed (from 2009 to 2023) is permissible, as documents from this period may be potentially relevant to the investigation. The suspicion extends to actions that could have taken place before and after the crime period (2011-2015). The unsealing is therefore proportionate.
**E.4**: The complainant argued that a preliminary triage to protect attorney-client privilege regarding third-party mandates was necessary. This argument is not followed: The complainant should have fulfilled his obligation to cooperate and substantiate in order to adequately identify the affected mandates. The lower court correctly decided that the seizure and unsealing do not violate the confidentiality of third-party mandates.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint in the first proceeding is not admitted, and the complaint in the second proceeding is dismissed. The court costs are partially imposed on one party and partially on the other.
8C_577/2025: Decision on the Deletion of a Proceeding due to Withdrawal of the Complaint
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a complaint against a decision of the Cour des assurances sociales of the Cantonal Court of Vaud dated September 4, 2025. However, in a letter dated October 18, 2025, A.________ declared the withdrawal of the complaint he had submitted on September 30, 2025.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_1194/2024: Request for Recusal in a Criminal Proceeding
Summary of the Facts
A.A.________ is subject to proceedings for violations of social insurance laws before the District Court of See-Gaster. After the presiding judge ordered a medical examination to assess the ability of A.A.________'s attorney B.________ to stand trial, he filed a request for recusal against the judge. The request was rejected by the Chamber of Indictments of the Canton of St. Gallen.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_9/2026: Inadmissibility of the Complaint against Cost Advance
Summary of the Facts
A.________ has filed a complaint against a decision of the Chambre de surveillance de la Cour de justice of the Canton of Geneva, which required her to make a cost advance of CHF 400 in connection with the official appointment of a guardian.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_47/2026: Order of Preventive Detention in Connection with the Extension of an Inpatient Therapeutic Measure
Summary of the Facts
The complainant was convicted in 2002 and 2011 for serious sexual offenses and was last placed under an inpatient therapeutic measure according to Art. 59 of the Criminal Code. In 2025, the question of extending the measure, which was originally due to expire on November 12, 2025, arose. Due to an outstanding psychiatric assessment, the Tribunal des mesures de contrainte (TMC) ordered preventive detention according to Art. 364b StPO on November 5, 2025. The complainant requested his release from detention, arguing that the competent authorities had not applied for a timely extension of the measure. The Cantonal Court of Valais found a violation of the complainant's right to be heard but dismissed the complaint in other respects.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_947/2023: Ruling on the Unsealing of Data in Connection with a Criminal Investigation
Summary of the Facts
The case concerns a criminal investigation against attorney B.A.________ for qualified unfaithful management and professional fraud in connection with the transfer of patents of the C.________ group to a foundation. During house searches, various documents and data carriers were seized, the unsealing of which the Public Prosecutor's Office requested. After a triage hearing conducted by the coercive measures court, the data were partially released and partially withheld. B.A.________ and B.________ AG filed a complaint against this with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_473/2023: Ruling on the Unsealing of Records of an Attorney
Summary of the Facts
Attorney B.A.________ was suspected in a criminal investigation by the Public Prosecutor's Office III of the Canton of Zurich of multiple embezzlement, unfaithful management, and aiding and abetting fraud or money laundering. House searches were conducted, data carriers (including a mobile phone and a SIM card) were seized, and a sealing order was requested. The coercive measures court of the District of Zurich granted the Public Prosecutor's Office's request for unsealing. B.A.________ filed a complaint against this with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7F_59/2025: Ruling on the Request for Revision Concerning Change of Official Defense
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court dismissed the complaint of A.________ against a decision of the Cantonal Court of Zurich regarding a change of official defense with ruling 7B_792/2025 on October 24, 2025, to the extent it was admitted. In a submission dated December 12, 2025, A.________ requested the revision of the Federal Court ruling.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_384/2025: Dismissal of the Complaint Regarding Disability Pension and Integrity Compensation
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, A.________, suffered an accident in 2021 resulting in a trimalleolar fracture of the right ankle. The Swiss Accident Insurance Institute (CNA) covered the treatment costs and granted an integrity compensation of 10%, but denied a disability pension. Following the decision on the objection in January 2024, the cantonal court dismissed the insured person's complaint in May 2025. The complainant requested a disability pension from the Federal Court based on a degree of disability of at least 31% as well as an increased integrity compensation of at least 15%.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_59/2026: Decision on Tax Assessment for the Years 2015-2022
Summary of the Facts
The taxpayer A.________ contested tax assessments from the tax authority of the Canton of Ticino for the years 2015-2022. The cantonal authorities had considered additional income ("other income") based on a balance sheet of assets and liabilities as well as identified monetary benefits from B.________ SA. The lower court, the Camera di diritto tributario of the Tribunal d'appello of the Canton of Ticino, dismissed A.________'s complaint. He then filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_529/2025: Acceptance of the Complaint Against DNA Profile Order
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________, a national of B.________ without a fixed residence, was repeatedly controlled by the police on suspicion of violations of the Foreigners and Integration Act (AIG) and the Narcotics Act (BetmG). In one of the criminal proceedings, a DNA profile of the complainant was ordered, with the possibility of uncovering past offenses unknown to the authorities. The cantonal instance confirmed the order. A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court, among other things arguing that the order violated his personal rights and was disproportionate.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_1402/2024: Attempted Murder and Complicity in Sexual Offenses
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted by the Criminal Court of Broye and Nord-Vaud for attempted murder and various complicity offenses in connection with sexual offenses against children and other violent crimes. She appealed against this ruling, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Vaud. The complainant requests her complete acquittal or a milder sentence before the Federal Court. The focus of the legal disputes is the determination of the relevant facts and sentencing.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_38/2026: Dismissal of Requests for Extension of Time and Restoration of Time
Summary of the Facts
The proceedings concern a complaint from A.________ against the confirmation of the bankruptcy without prior enforcement by the Cour des poursuites et faillites of the Cantonal Court of Vaud. A.________ requested an extension or restoration of the deadline for filing a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_1178/2024: Inadmissibility in Proceedings Due to Unexcused Absence
Summary of the Facts
The underlying proceedings concern the unexcused absence of A.________ (complainant 1) and his attorney B.________ (complainant 2) from the main hearing of the District Court of See-Gaster on June 5, 2024, which took place in a criminal proceeding for social insurance fraud. The main hearing was adjourned, and the lower court stated in its decision that the absence of the complainants was unexcused, without imposing any sanctions. The complainants contested this decision. After the Chamber of Indictments of the Canton of St. Gallen did not admit the complaint, they appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_570/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint
Summary of the Facts
The complainant requested the consideration of unpaid mortgage interest in the calculation of supplementary benefits for AHV/IV as well as the reimbursement claim for health insurance premiums and medical costs. The cantonal compensation office and subsequently the cantonal insurance court had rejected these claims.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.