Latest Judgments of the Federal Supreme Court
Here you will find the most recent judgments of the Federal Supreme Court (BGer) from bger.ch. For the first three judgments, we present detailed summaries with facts, considerations, and dispositives. For the further judgments, you will find a summary of the facts each time. The full summaries of all judgments are available on the Lexplorer portal. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest judgments individually tailored to your areas of law.
2C_353/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning the ban on the distribution of e-cigarettes
Summary of the Facts
A.________ Sàrl, based in U.________, imports and distributes disposable e-cigarettes of the brands ISOK X and ISOK NEOS. The company's products were examined by the cantonal Service de la consommation et des affaires vétérinaires of the Canton of Geneva (SCAV). It was found that the volume of the liquid containers of the affected e-cigarettes exceeded 2 ml, which violates Art. 9 lit. b of the Federal Act on Tobacco Products and Electronic Cigarettes (LPTab). Distribution was subsequently prohibited and a recall of the products was ordered. The company appealed this order to the Federal Supreme Court as the court of last instance.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court declares the appeal admissible, as the required formal and substantive prerequisites are met. It is established that the Federal Supreme Court reviews federal legal protection and rights under the Federal Constitution freely. For cantonal law, it only examines whether the application was arbitrary. At the core of the proceedings is the interpretation of Art. 9 lit. b LPTab, according to which the volume of the "reservoir" of a disposable e-cigarette must not exceed 2 ml. The Federal Supreme Court follows the interpretation of the lower court and confirms that the volume of the container as a unit—and not only the actual liquid volume—is decisive. Due to the clear objective of the legislator to ensure protection against nicotine and to align with European regulations, the Federal Supreme Court concludes that the container of the product must overall fall under the 2 ml limit. The legislative gap claimed by the appellant is rejected by the Federal Supreme Court, as the legislator consciously made a different decision. The Federal Supreme Court sees no reason to question the legality of the recall, as it complies with the provisions of the LPTab and no specific complaints were raised.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal is dismissed and the court costs are imposed on the appellant.
2C_492/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning the distribution of disposable e-cigarettes
Summary of the Facts
A.________ SA, a company in the retail sector based in the Canton of Geneva, was prevented by the Service de la consommation et des affaires vétérinaires of the Canton of Geneva (SCAV) from distributing disposable e-cigarettes of certain brands with a tank volume exceeding 2 ml. In addition, a recall and various information obligations were imposed. After an unsuccessful objection against this order, A.________ SA initially appealed to the Geneva judicial authorities and subsequently to the Federal Supreme Court. The main issue in dispute was the products LOST MARY BM6000 and ELFBAR AF5000, whereby the appellant argued that these were not subject to the requirements of the federal legislation regulating tobacco products (Art. 9 of the Tobacco Products Act) and were marketed in compliance with EU market regulations.
Summary of the Considerations
E.1: The Federal Supreme Court admitted the appeal as the formal requirements were met; the appeal concerned a public law matter and contained a sufficient legitimate interest. E.2: The scope of review of the Federal Supreme Court under Art. 95 BGG was explained. The findings of the lower court regarding the facts were binding for the Federal Supreme Court unless they were obviously incorrect. E.3: The classification of the products as inadmissible under Art. 9 LPTab was confirmed by the lower court. Even under a legally strict interpretation, it was found that the tank volume of the products exceeded the statutory limits. E.4: It was examined whether the appellant was violated in her right to be heard. The lower court had considered her arguments, so the allegation was rejected. E.5: The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the products complied with the technical trade barriers (LETC). The appellant could neither sufficiently demonstrate nor prove that the products were actually legally marketed in the EU. E.6-E.7: It was finally concluded that neither factual nor legally tenable arguments refuted the assessment of the lower court.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal was dismissed, and court fees were imposed on the appellant without awarding party compensation.