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 provide detailed summaries including facts, considerations, and rulings. For the subsequent 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.
7B_37/2025: Decision on Non-Handling and Non-Admission in a Criminal Appeal Procedure
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed a criminal complaint for simple bodily harm, which the Public Prosecutor's Office of St. Gallen did not pursue on September 27, 2024. The Cantonal Court of St. Gallen subsequently rejected an appeal from the appellant on December 12, 2024. The appellant filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
1. (E. 1) The Federal Court only addresses the decision of the Cantonal Court from December 12, 2024, and does not examine any further concerns or issues. 2. (E. 2) The appellant did not provide sufficient grounds for the appeal. His submission does not meet the requirements of Art. 42 para. 2 BGG, as it does not contain a substantial discussion of the lower court's considerations and only presents appellate criticism. 3. (E. 3) The appellant did not comment on the standing to appeal or possible civil claims under Art. 81 para. 1 lit. b no. 5 BGG, which would be a prerequisite for the consideration of the appeal. 4. (E. 4) No complaint of a violation of procedural rights is present. 5. (E. 5) Due to the hopelessness of the submission, the request for free legal aid is rejected. 6. (E. 6) The Federal Court does not consider the appeal in the simplified procedure under Art. 108 BGG, and the court costs are imposed on the appellant.
Summary of the Ruling
The appeal is not considered, the request for free legal aid is rejected, and the court costs are imposed.
5A_451/2024: Decision on Divorce Consequences and Liquidation of the Property Regime
Summary of the Facts
The parties A.________ (born 1970) and B.________ (born 1964) married in 1997 and lived under a standard property regime (participation in acquired property). After separating in 2018, the husband filed a unilateral divorce petition in 2021. Points of contention included the sale of the joint property, the division of the sale proceeds, and the liquidation of the property regime. The husband disputed the shares determined by the Cantonal Court and the obligation to pay compensation.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Court declares the appeal request formally and materially admissible according to Art. 100 para. 1, 42 para. 1, 90, and 75 para. 1 BGG. The husband could not prove that he invested €45,000 from his own property into the house purchase. The Federal Court confirms the prior instance's finding that the real estate purchase was primarily financed through acquired property and that the husband has no claim to an increased share of the profits. The wife did not sufficiently detail her claims regarding acquired property and other assets, thus violating Art. 84 para. 2 ZPO. The Federal Court reduces the amount the husband is to pay the wife from CHF 60,665 to CHF 10,000. A separate claim for reimbursement of a "provisio ad litem" amounting to CHF 10,000 is deducted from the total.
Summary of the Ruling
The Federal Court reduced the payment from the husband to the wife to CHF 10,000 and imposed the court costs equally on both parties.
2C_109/2025: Imposition of Procedural Costs on Legal Representatives in Cantonal Detention Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
A Tunisian person was taken into expulsion detention, but the Tunisian authorities delayed the issuance of the necessary travel documents for the execution of the expulsion. The cantonal detention judge rejected the requests for release from detention and imposed procedural costs of CHF 2,000 jointly on the person's legal representatives. These legal representatives filed an appeal to the Federal Court against the cost imposition and alleged a violation of the right to be heard and the prohibition of arbitrariness.
Summary of the Considerations
1. The Federal Court declares the appeal admissible. The legal representatives are considered particularly affected and have a legitimate interest in the annulment of the cantonal decision (Art. 89 para. 1 BGG). 2. The Federal Court assesses the application of federal law and cantonal constitutional rights freely but examines simple cantonal legal norms only for arbitrariness. The right to be heard is a facet of a fair procedure that must be considered before issuing a burdensome decision. 4. The prior instance granted the appellants a right to be heard through their representation at the oral hearing on January 22, 2025. There were no obvious deficiencies in the course of the hearing, making the formal complaint unfounded. 5. The cost imposition on the legal representatives is deemed arbitrary. The cantonal court justified the cost imposition with allegedly careless and abusive litigation but did not sufficiently substantiate this with concrete factual findings. The submitted request for release from detention was misqualified and was not based on inaccurate or misleading information. Formal deficiencies in the request were of minor importance and did not justify a cost imposition.
Summary of the Ruling
The appeal is upheld, and the cost imposition is annulled; there are no court costs and no party compensation.
7B_968/2024: Decision on the Challenge of a Property Seizure in the Context of a Criminal Proceeding
Summary of the Facts
C.B.________ and A.B.________, who jointly own a property as spouses, were subject to criminal investigations. The accusations include fraud, forgery, money laundering, and violations of COVID-19 loan regulations. The allegation concerns the abusive use of COVID loans granted to them, among others, as business owners. During the investigations, a property belonging to them was seized by the public prosecutor of the canton of Fribourg. Both filed an appeal against this measure with the cantonal court, which was rejected. A.B.________ then turned to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_108/2025: Judgment on Expulsion Detention and Free Legal Representation
Summary of the Facts
The Tunisian national A.________ entered Switzerland in 2022 and applied for asylum. Following the final decision of the Federal Administrative Court, he was taken into expulsion detention in 2024. The detention was initially approved until February 2025 and was later extended. His request for release from detention and the request for free legal representation were rejected by the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zug. A.________ filed an appeal against this decision with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_167/2025: Inadmissibility of a Criminal Legal Remedy Due to Insufficient Justification
Summary of the Facts
A.________ appealed to the Federal Court against a decision of the Criminal Appeal Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Vaud from December 16, 2024, which declared his cantonal appeal against a non-admission order of the competent public prosecutor inadmissible.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5F_16/2025: Decision on Non-Admission
Summary of the Facts
A.________ as a father submitted a request for revision to the Federal Court against its earlier non-admission ruling (5A_741/2024). The focus is on a modification request regarding his supervised visitation rights to his children D.________ and E.________. The revision is requested on the grounds that his fundamental and procedural rights were violated and that legal errors on the part of the Federal Court rendered the judgment appear faulty.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_148/2025: Inadmissibility of an Appeal in Enforcement
Summary of the Facts
B.________ initiated enforcement proceedings against A.________ to recover CHF 70,000 plus interest. The Mendrisio Debt Collection Office seized a co-ownership parcel of A.________. The latter requested the suspension or annulment of the enforcement, claiming that the proceedings were based on criminal acts by the creditor. The cantonal supervisory authority rejected the appeal as inadmissible because the validity of the claim did not fall within its jurisdiction and A.________ had not submitted a formally valid criminal complaint.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_114/2025: Decision Regarding Supplementary Benefits for AHV/IV
Summary of the Facts
The supplementary benefits for AHV were denied due to a waiver of assets and excessive consumption of assets by the appellant. The prior instance established that the asset threshold according to Art. 9a para. 1 lit. a ELG was exceeded. The appellant argued that she was incapable of judgment, which was denied by the prior instance with reference to medical reports.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_695/2023: Legal Dispute Regarding Zone Réservée in the Canton of Vaud
Summary of the Facts
The affected properties are located within a revised perimeter of the municipal planning. The introduction of the "Zone Réservée" is part of a measure to comply with the legal requirements of federal legislation and to reduce oversized building zones.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1180/2024: Non-Handling and Non-Admission in Criminal Appeal
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed a criminal complaint in 2023 against a public prosecutor who had conducted a criminal proceeding against a dentist in a previous matter. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Aargau did not pursue the criminal complaint. An appeal against this before the Cantonal Court of Aargau was not considered in the decision from October 2024. The appellant then appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_131/2024: Appeal Against the Enforcement of a Mandatory Expulsion Under Art. 66d StGB
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, a Sri Lankan national born in Switzerland, was convicted of various offenses and sentenced to a prison term, a fine, and a mandatory expulsion for seven years. He requested a postponement of the expulsion, citing health and human rights issues as well as alleged personal risks upon return to Sri Lanka. After his request for postponement was denied, he again turned to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_712/2024: Conviction for Serious Violations of Drug Legislation and Expulsion
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted for serious and minor violations of drug legislation for his involvement in a drug network. He received a prison sentence of 39 months and was expelled from Switzerland for ten years. The appellate court did not reduce his sentence but granted him compensation for unlawful detention conditions amounting to CHF 5,750. A.________ appealed to the Federal Court demanding a significant reduction of the sentence, a higher compensation, and the annulment of the expulsion.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_693/2024: Procedure for Withdrawal of a Legal Remedy in an Insurance Matter
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed an appeal against a decision of the Cantonal Court of Valais regarding disability insurance (from November 4, 2024) on December 5, 2024. However, in a letter dated March 7, 2025, A.________ declared his withdrawal of the legal remedy.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_188/2024: Pension Revision and Benefits Suspension in Accident Insurance
Summary of the Facts
The appellant had been entitled to an invalidity pension (degree of invalidity 60%) and an integrity compensation (35%) since an accident in 1994 under accident insurance. The pension was repeatedly confirmed after revisions. In 2020, the responsible insurance initiated a new revision procedure based on a multidisciplinary assessment, which led to a total cessation of the pension at the end of February 2021. The complaint filed against this by the insured was rejected by the Cantonal Court of Lucerne.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7F_2/2025: Inadmissibility of a Revision Request
Summary of the Facts
A.________ requested the revision of an earlier decision of the Federal Court (7B_1164/2024). The Federal Court declared the revision request inadmissible due to the non-payment of a requested advance on procedural costs and other deadlines being violated.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_167/2025: Appeal Against the Refusal of Authorization to Open a Criminal Proceeding
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a criminal complaint in December 2024 against two judges of the District Court of See-Gaster. The indictment chamber of the Canton of St. Gallen refused the necessary authorization to open a criminal proceeding with a decision dated February 10, 2025. A.________ appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_704/2024: Claim for Invalidity Pension and Procedural Admissibility
Summary of the Facts
A driver, insured with the B.________ pension fund, received an invalidity pension starting in January 2004, which was discontinued in 2014 due to an established improvement in his health condition. After unsuccessful professional reintegration measures, the insured reapplied for benefits in February 2017. The responsible cantonal office granted him a full invalidity pension again starting in March 2017. The foundation contested this decision, and the cantonal court declared their appeal inadmissible due to lack of legal interest.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_166/2025: Judgment on Contesting a Bankruptcy Decision
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ Sagl, represented by its president, filed a complaint with the Federal Court against a judgment of the cantonal appeal chamber, which confirmed an earlier decision to open bankruptcy proceedings against the company on December 12, 2024. The complaint was based on the assertion that the debt had been fully settled and could, in the opinion of A.________ Sagl, be overturned.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_48/2025: Decision on the Deletion of Data from a Police File
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ requested the deletion of data from his police file in the Canton of Vaud. The data concern events from 2020 and 2023, including an incident of property damage and an incident where he offered students information for payment. The cantonal authorities rejected the complete deletion but allowed the deletion of outdated data regarding another matter. A.________ filed an appeal against this decision with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_171/2025: Decision Regarding Supplementary Benefits for AHV/IV
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, represented by B.A.________, challenged the legality of the needs assessment conducted by the Office for Supplementary Benefits for AHV/IV of the City of Zurich. The subject of dispute was the calculation of supplementary benefits for January 2024 and the recovery of an overpaid amount. The Social Security Court of the Canton of Zurich largely confirmed the objection decision and instructed the office to recalculate the benefits for the period starting from February 2024.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_119/2025: Decision on the Compensation for the Private Mandate of a Curator
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was appointed as a curator to protect B.________, who voluntarily requested curatorship. The compensation for the curator and the correct bookkeeping were reviewed by the responsible court over several years. The Tribunal de protection demanded repayments from A.________ for excessive withdrawals that had not been timely approved. The curator requested a declaration that these claims were time-barred.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_88/2024: Facts Regarding a Rental Dispute and Termination of a Rental Object
Summary of the Facts
The plaintiff (tenant) and the defendant (landlord) disputed the appropriate condition change of the rental objects, a rent reduction due to defects, the consignment of the rent payments, and the alleged termination by the landlord. The main point of contention was the condition of the electrical installations in the rental object. The landlord terminated the lease in 2020, justifying it with alleged personal use. However, the tenant alleged an abusive termination (so-called Kongé-Représailles) triggered by her demands regarding the defects of the electrical installations.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_58/2024: Legal Dispute Over Quality for Appeal Regarding Zoning Plan in Montreux
Summary of the Facts
The municipality of Montreux planned to introduce a reserved zone plan to counter oversized building zones. The municipal council passed this plan, and the competent cantonal department approved it. An organization called Helvetia Nostra appealed against these decisions, which was rejected by the cantonal court due to lack of appeal legitimacy. The matter reached the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.