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 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.
5A_1112/2025: Inadmissibility of the complaint against the decision of the KESB
Summary of the facts
This case concerned the approval of the moral report with financial statement for the year 2024 as well as the remuneration of a representation curator appointed for A.________. A.________ filed a complaint against the decision of the Child and Adult Protection Authority (KESB) dated November 6, 2025, which was declared inadmissible by the president of the competent chamber of the cantonal court by decision dated December 16, 2025, due to insufficient justification.
Summary of the considerations
The lower court declared the complaint inadmissible, as A.________ did not contest the content of the challenged decision and did not provide sufficient justification. The Federal Court qualified A.________'s submission as a civil complaint and found that the submission did not contain valid requests and that the reasoning did not meet the legal requirements according to Art. 42 para. 2 and 106 para. 2 BGG. In particular, there was a lack of sufficient engagement with the considerations of the lower court. The complaint is obviously inadmissible; the Federal Court decided in a simplified procedure according to Art. 108 para. 1 lit. a and b BGG. Given the circumstances of the case, no court costs were imposed.
Summary of the disposition
The Federal Court declared the complaint inadmissible and imposed no court costs.
1C_45/2026: Release of evidence
Summary of the facts
A.________ AG and B.________ oppose the release of bank documents confirmed by the Federal Criminal Court to the Latvian authorities in connection with a criminal proceeding for serious money laundering. They request the Federal Court to overturn this decision.
Summary of the considerations
The complaint in public law matters is only admissible if a particularly significant case is present, which needs to be examined here. Art. 84 BGG aims for a restrictive admission of these procedures. The complainants criticized that the Federal Court's case law on international legal assistance in the area of money laundering has been heavily criticized in the literature. The Federal Court notes that the existing case law has been confirmed multiple times and that there is no reason to revisit it in the present proceeding. The allegation that the Federal Prosecutor's Office made impermissible assessments of evidence in the request for legal assistance was already dismissed by the lower court. A particularly significant case does not arise from this either. The alleged violation of the right to be heard of the complainants by the Federal Court or the Federal Prosecutor's Office could also not be considered particularly significant, as the relevant documents were taken into account. Overall, there is no particularly significant case.
Summary of the disposition
The complaint is not admitted, and the court costs are imposed on the complainants, without any party compensation being awarded.
7B_550/2024: Decision on the unsealing of seized mobile phones in juvenile criminal proceedings
Summary of the facts
The Youth Prosecutor's Office in Winterthur conducted a criminal investigation against A.________ for violations of the Weapons Act. Two mobile phones were seized on March 3, 2024; A.________ requested their sealing on March 4, 2024. The Youth Prosecutor's Office filed a request for unsealing; the coercive measures court of the Zurich district approved this on April 18, 2024. A.________ filed a criminal complaint, requested the annulment of the unsealing decision, and the referral for reassessment, or alternatively specific separation of lawyer correspondence and requested legal aid.
Summary of the considerations
The complaint is admissible, as it concerns a self-initiated interim decision (Art. 93 para. 1 lit. a BGG). The complainant has credibly demonstrated that there is a risk of irreparable legal disadvantage. The jurisdiction of the lower court (District Court of Zurich) was examined: Although the lower court based its jurisdiction on an incorrect basis (Art. 32 StPO instead of Art. 10 JStPO), the court's venue was correct in the outcome. The original request for unsealing by the Youth Prosecutor's Office was formally flawed but was subsequently rectified correctly. The lower court was allowed to accept the extension of the deadline. There was sufficient suspicion of the crime, especially based on concrete indications (e.g., suspicion of arms smuggling, prior offenses of the complainant, suspected terrorist background). The Federal Court decision BGE 148 IV 221 on data mirroring was outdated in parts. Given technical developments and the risk of irreversible data loss, data mirroring could be carried out in advance, provided certain requirements are met (e.g., assignment to an expert without the prosecution authority's insight). The approach of the Youth Prosecutor's Office was assessed as compliant with federal law. Regarding the lawyer correspondence, the complainant fulfilled his substantiation obligations (indication of the name of the lawyer, communication in email and SMS), so that the lower court would have been obliged to separate it. The non-examination of the lawyer correspondence violated federal law.
Summary of the disposition
The complaint was partially upheld, the original decision was overturned, and the matter was referred back for a new decision. No court costs were imposed, and the canton had to cover the lawyer's costs.
5D_2/2026: Inadmissibility of the complaint in an eviction dispute
Summary of the facts
The parties have been involved for years in a dispute over inheritance and property law regarding the distribution of the inheritance of their deceased father. The respondent requested legal protection in clear cases from the District Court of Hinwil, after which the complainant was obliged to vacate certain properties and hand over keys. The Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich did not consider the appeal of the complainant due to a lack of justification.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_611/2025: Classification of residence rights in accordance with Art. 8 ECHR
Summary of the facts
A.________, a Bolivian national, entered Switzerland in 2023 with her two children (also Bolivian nationals) on a tourist visa to visit her mother and her Swiss stepfather. Due to a severe illness (rheumatoid arthritis), which left her dependent on a wheelchair, she and her children applied for a residence permit for hardship cases. This application was rejected by the competent cantonal office, subsequently by the Tribunal administratif de première instance, and finally by the Cour de justice. The case was submitted to the Federal Court to review the rejection.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_797/2025: Inadmissibility of the complaint for the issuance of an executor's certificate
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________ requested the issuance of an executor's certificate following the death of his mother D.________, based on a handwritten testament passage. The inheritance office Basel-Stadt rejected this request, as did the cantonal authorities. With a complaint in civil matters, A.________ demanded before the Federal Court the issuance of the certificate or a referral back to the inheritance office for reassessment.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_750/2025: Non-admission due to lack of legal sufficiency of the reasoning
Summary of the facts
The complainant filed a complaint against a decision of the municipal council of Obersiggenthal, which was ultimately dismissed by the Administrative Court of the Canton of Aargau for lack of legally sufficient reasoning. The cantonal complaint authority as well as the municipal authorities had not admitted the submissions. The Federal Court examines whether the non-admission by the cantonal court was lawful.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_1093/2025: Judgment regarding the enforcement of a mortgage and burden register
Summary of the facts
The complainant sold a property, which later became the subject of a rescission agreement that was not executed. The new owner, a corporation, took out a mortgage loan secured by a debt certificate. Following an application for enforcement of the mortgage, the complainant registered further name debt certificates for inclusion in the burden register, which the competent enforcement office rejected. The cantonal authorities partially upheld the complainant's appeal, but rejected additional requests.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_55/2026: Judgment regarding unemployment insurance (procedural requirement; contribution period)
Summary of the facts
In this case, a freelance pilot who worked for B.________ GmbH was classified by the unemployment insurance fund of the Canton of St. Gallen as not subject to contribution periods, which is why his claim for unemployment benefits was denied. The complainant cited a judgment of the Federal Social Court of Germany, according to which a freelance pilot should be classified as an employee and not as a self-employed person under certain circumstances. However, the cantonal court pointed out that this judgment has no relevance in the present case.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_583/2025: Non-admission of the complaint due to non-payment of the cost advance
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________, residing in Italy, requested the recognition of a foreign diploma as a ski instructor. The Swiss Confederation, represented by SEFRI, made the recognition dependent on the successful completion of several aptitude tests. Against the negative decision of SEFRI, A.________ turned to the Federal Administrative Court, which dismissed the complaint with a judgment dated July 31, 2025. Subsequently, A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court and requested unconditional recognition of the diploma.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_162/2025: Judgment regarding disability assessment in the context of non-insured self-employment within the framework of accident insurance
Summary of the facts
The respondent A.________ was employed as a psychologist at the B.________ hospital for 60% and additionally self-employed at a 40% rate, without this activity being voluntarily insured according to Art. 4 UVG. In 2018, she slipped on a staircase at the hospital and suffered a sacral fracture. The mandatory accident insurance (Visana Versicherungen AG) did not recognize any disability pension and ceased benefits in 2021. Upon complaint, the lower court granted A.________ a disability pension of 30% from June 2021.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_127/2025: Judgment regarding the disability pension
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________ registered with the IV office of the Canton of Graubünden for benefits in September 2020 due to chronic back and neck pain. Following a medical assessment and a work-related examination, a full disability pension was granted for the period from March 1 to September 30, 2021. No pension entitlement was recognized for the subsequent period, as full working capacity was attested in a work-adjusted activity. The Higher Court of the Canton of Graubünden confirmed this decision. With a complaint in public law matters, the complainant requested a disability pension from October 1, 2021, or alternatively a referral to the lower court or IV office.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_99/2025: Withdrawal of the right to determine residence and cost consequences in child protection measures
Summary of the facts
A.________ (complainant) and B.________ are the parents of C.________, born in 2006. The Child and Adult Protection Authority (KESB) Emmental withdrew the parents' right to determine residence in July 2023 and ordered the placement of their daughter as well as the appointment of a guardian. The Higher Court of the Canton of Bern confirmed the decision, which was later partially referred back to the Higher Court to make a new decision. Upon the daughter's coming of age (November 2024), the Higher Court declared the child protection measures moot and re-regulated the cost issue.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_26/2026: Inadmissibility of the complaint
Summary of the facts
A.________, a former Greek lawyer who has been residing in Switzerland since 2017, was accused by the Greek tax authority of not declaring all worldwide income for the tax years 2016 and 2017. The Greek authorities requested administrative assistance from the Swiss Confederation for the transmission of tax-related information, including bank statements and tax returns of A.________. After the requested documents were obtained by the Swiss authorities, A.________ filed an objection, which was dismissed by the Federal Administrative Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_424/2023: Decision regarding the residence permit
Summary of the facts
The complainant, a Brazilian national, came to Switzerland in 2009 at the age of 10 to live with his mother, who was married to an EU citizen. He received a residence permit under family reunification in 2012, which was not extended after his mother divorced the EU citizen in 2015. Despite pending permits, he remained in Switzerland, completed school and training, and found a permanent job in 2023. The complainant argued that he is entitled to a residence permit based on Art. 8 ECHR due to his integration and social roots in Switzerland.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_86/2025: Upholding the complaint regarding work and earning incapacity
Summary of the facts
The complainant, born in 1973, has been completely blind since birth and applied in 2023 for benefits from the disability insurance (IV), specifically for a pension and assistance benefits. The IV office of the Canton of Neuchâtel rejected the applications, as no permanent incapacity for work or earning capacity was proven. The cantonal administrative court confirmed this decision.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_84/2026: Proceedings on suspensive effect (visitation contacts) discontinued due to withdrawal of the complaint
Summary of the facts
In the underlying proceedings, the Appeals Court of Basel-Stadt continued to deny the mother’s (A.________) complaint against the decision of the KESB Basel-Stadt concerning the suspensive effect, so that initially two supervised visitation contacts between the father (B.________) and the child were to take place. The supervising person was to report on this. Subsequently, the mother completely withdrew her complaint before the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_427/2023: Approval of the residence permit due to successful integration
Summary of the facts
A Brazilian national (C.________) applied for the renewal of her residence permit after it was not extended due to her mother's divorce from an EU/EFTA citizen. The lower courts rejected her application and the subsequent appeals. She referred to Articles 30 and 50 of the Foreigners and Integration Act (AIG), Article 8 ECHR, and Article 9 of the Federal Constitution (BV).
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_1046/2025: Judgment regarding bankruptcy opening
Summary of the facts
The complainant filed a complaint against the first-instance bankruptcy opening by the district court of Bucheggberg-Wasseramt and its confirmation by the higher court of the Canton of Solothurn. He raised various violations of constitutional rights and also claimed infringements on his economic existence. The Federal Court examines the allegations in light of the relevant statutory provisions.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8F_20/2025: Judgment on the revision request
Summary of the facts
The applicant A.________ submitted a revision request against the Federal Court's judgment of October 14, 2025 (8C_475/2025). He also requested free legal aid, which was denied. The cost advance was not paid on time, which led to the dismissal of his legal remedy.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_33/2026: Non-admission due to formal defects
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________ filed an "objection against the judgment of October 1, 2025" with the Social Security Court of the Canton of Zurich, which forwarded her submission to the Federal Court. The Federal Court set a deadline for her to rectify formal defects (including the submission of the contested decision) and to correctly justify the complaint (Art. 42 para. 1 and 2 BGG). The complainant did not comply with this request.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_184/2024: Decision of the Federal Court 8C_184/2024
Summary of the facts
The complainant, a man recognized as a refugee in Switzerland, was criminally convicted and his criminal expulsion was ordered according to Art. 66a StGB. Despite the expulsion, he remained in Switzerland. The cantonal social welfare suspended its support, as he was accused of not cooperating with the expulsion authorities. The complainant then demanded social assistance or at least emergency aid. The cantonal court decided that he is entitled to emergency aid if a state of emergency exists, but not comprehensive social assistance.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_426/2023: Decision regarding the extension of the residence permit UE/EFTA
Summary of the facts
The Brazilian complainant entered Switzerland in 2005 and received a residence permit UE/EFTA due to her marriage to an EU/EFTA citizen. After the separation in 2008, various legal and social circumstances arose, such as a conviction in 2007, temporary stays in Brazil, and unemployment. After the divorce in 2015 and repeated requests for an extension of the residence permit, the competent authorities denied the extension.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_191/2025: Rejection of an insolvency compensation due to violation of the duty to mitigate damages
Summary of the facts
A.________, formerly employed as a driver at B.________ Transporte, requested an insolvency compensation from the unemployment fund of the Canton of Zurich. This was rejected by the fund, as A.________ was deemed not to have sufficiently fulfilled his duty to mitigate damages. His allegations were examined in two phases, including legal steps and the submission of a conciliation request after significant delay.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_99/2026: Judgment on the request for suspensive effect in matters of spousal support
Summary of the facts
The complainant filed a complaint against an order of the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau, which rejected his request for suspensive effect. The proceedings concern spousal support regulations, particularly concerning alimony payments and visitation rights.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_879/2025: Decision on a complaint procedure regarding the maintenance of a criminal procedural seizure
Summary of the facts
The proceedings concern the criminal seizure of a condominium unit owned by A.________, which was seized due to suspicion of criminal activities (including diminishing the active assets to the detriment of creditors, qualified unfaithful management, and money laundering) in the context of a criminal proceeding. The lower courts, including the Chambre des recours pénale of the Cantonal Court of Vaud, confirmed the maintenance of the seizure based on sufficient suspicion and the absence of an alternatively suitable measure. The complainant requested the lifting of the seizure and essentially argued that there were no sufficient indicators of suspicion and a violation of the principle of proportionality (regarding the duration of the seizure).
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.