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 dispositive parts. 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.
1C_457/2024: Judgment on Recusal Requests and Non-Acceptance Due to Non-Payment of Advance Costs
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court deals with two proceedings related to recusal requests against members of the Appenzell Ausserrhoden Cantonal Court and the non-acceptance by the Cantonal Court due to the late payment of an advance cost.
Summary of the Considerations
**1.** The Federal Court consolidates the proceedings 1C_457/2024 and 1C_644/2024 (Art. 71 BGG in conjunction with Art. 24 BZP). It finds that certain documents are not necessary to clarify the facts. **2.** The jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the prerequisites for acceptance are met. **3.** In the proceeding 1C_457/2024, the appeal is not accepted because it does not meet the requirements for justification and does not sufficiently engage with the arguments of the lower court. **4.** In the proceeding 1C_644/2024, the recusal of court personnel is formally claimed but dismissed as unfounded. Furthermore, it is examined whether the advance payment was made in time. The Federal Court finds that the payment was late since the appeal had no suspensive effect. **5.** The appeal in the proceeding 1C_644/2024 is dismissed as unfounded.
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The proceedings are consolidated, the appeal in proceeding 1C_457/2024 is not accepted, and the appeal in proceeding 1C_644/2024 is dismissed.
5A_878/2024: Judgment on Measures Regarding Relationships with Children from a Previous Partnership
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ and the respondent B.________ had a registered partnership contract, which was dissolved in 2014. B.________ is the biological mother of the joint children, and A.________ was granted a right to personal relationships with the children through court decisions. Due to ongoing conflicts between the parties and reports on the emotional strain on the children from the existing visitation arrangements, a new visitation arrangement was made, which was challenged by A.________ before the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
1. (Paragraph 1) The formal requirements of the appeal are met. The case involves a decision on measures (Art. 98 BGG), which is limited to examining violations of constitutional rights. 2. (Paragraphs 2.1 - 2.4) The Federal Court found that the cantonal decision is considered a provisional measure. The procedure at the Child and Adult Protection Court (TPAE) provides for the preparation of a family psychiatric report and allows for a later adjustment of the visitation arrangement. 3. (Paragraphs 3 - 4) The cantonal decision and the established law considering Art. 274a ZGB were analyzed in detail. The conflict between A.________ and B.________ as well as the impact on the children were comprehensively considered. 7. (Paragraphs 6 - 7.8) The arguments of A.________, who demanded an extended visitation arrangement, were examined. The Federal Court notes that the cantonal court's decision, based on the importance of stability and the interest of the children, does not represent an arbitrary application of the law. 8. (Paragraph 8) No specific regulation for holidays and festive days was made, as this was not requested by the appellant at the cantonal level.
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The appeal is dismissed, and the court costs are borne by the appellant.
1C_393/2024: Decision on the Building Permit for a Residential Complex
Summary of the Facts
The procedure concerned the examination of a building application for two multi-family houses on a plot of land in Orselina. The applicant D.________ referred to an existing easement at the time of application, which allows the use of an adjacent plot of land for the construction of parking spaces. The legal questions included, among other things, the validity of the signature on the building application concerning the easement and compliance with building law regarding building distance and contiguity.
Summary of the Considerations
1.1 The Federal Court established the basic admissibility of the appeal under Art. 90 LTF. It was confirmed that the appellant was entitled to contest the earlier cantonal decision to dismiss (cf. Art. 93 para. 3 LTF). 1.2 The appeal required sufficient justification and the assertion of a violation of specific legal norms (Art. 42 LTF; Art. 106 para. 2 LTF). 1.3 The Federal Court examined the cantonal and municipal building and planning law only from the perspective of the prohibition of arbitrariness. It was found that the appellant did not sufficiently demonstrate that the lower court's decision was untenable in its results. 2.2 The lower court established that the easement granted the applicant D.________ the right to create parking spaces on the burdened plot without the consent of the property owners. This was supported by cantonal case law as well as the foundations of the building application (Art. 4 LE and Art. 8 para. 2 RLE). 2.3 The appellant could not convincingly refute the relevant cantonal jurisprudence (from 2009 and 2011). 2.6 The Federal Court confirmed that private restrictions arising from rights relationships such as easements are regularly to be clarified within the framework of civil law discussions and do not affect the building law admissibility of the building application examination. 3.1 The provisions of cantonal building law were legally interpreted by the lower court, particularly regarding the requirements for signing building applications. 4. Since the appellant did not sufficiently explain why the cantonal interpretation should be arbitrary, the appeal was dismissed.
Summary of the Dispositive Part
The appeal was rejected, and the court costs were imposed on the appellant.
4D_44/2025: Decision Regarding the Definitive Legal Opening and the Procedural Handling of Non-Payment of Advance Fees
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a subsidiary constitutional appeal with the Federal Court against a decision of the lower court that confirmed the definitive legal opening in a collection case by the State of Vaud. The Federal Court found that A.________ had not transferred the required advance fees even after an extension period.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9F_3/2025: Non-Acceptance of a Revision Request Regarding Disability Insurance
Summary of the Facts
The applicant A.________ requested a revision of a final Federal Court judgment (Judgment 9C_643/2024 of December 3, 2024) regarding the area of disability insurance. He effectively asserted a ground for revision under Art. 121 BGG (incorrect composition of the court). The revision request was examined by the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2F_8/2025: Revision of a Federal Court Judgment Regarding State Liability
Summary of the Facts
A.________ requested a revision of a Federal Court decision of non-acceptance (Judgment 2C_126/2025) regarding state liability against the city of St. Gallen. The original lawsuit was not handled due to formal errors, and a decision of non-acceptance was also issued in the cantonal proceedings, as well as in the subsequent Federal Court appeal proceedings. A.________ is now seeking a revision of the judgment of March 12, 2025, and raises various accusations against the Cantonal Court, including alleged violations of his right to be heard and his entitlement to free legal assistance.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_390/2024: Assessment of the Planning Approval for the Adjustment of the South Ramp at Dübendorf Station
Summary of the Facts
At Dübendorf Station, adjustments to the south ramp are to be made according to a plan proposal by the SBB to meet the requirements of the Disability Equality Act. The Federal Office of Transport (BAV) approved the project in a simplified planning approval procedure and imposed a ban on bicycles on the south ramp and in the pedestrian underpass. The city of Dübendorf opposed the ban on bicycles, claiming it interfered with a bicycle route contained in the municipal master plan. The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the complaint of the city of Dübendorf, after which it appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_388/2024: Decision on the Building Permit for Two Multi-Family Houses
Summary of the Facts
The judgment concerns the building permit for a new residential complex consisting of two multi-family houses with a four-story underground garage to be built on a plot encumbered by an easement. The owners of the encumbered plot raised objections due to the lack of consent and possible violations of zoning regulations regarding distances between buildings. The Federal Court examined the issue of signature and the right to use the plot for construction, taking into account previous decisions and cantonal legislation.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_131/2025: Reminder Fee for the Late Submission of a Tax Return in the Canton of Aargau
Summary of the Facts
The taxpayer A.________, residing in the Canton of Thurgau, is economically affiliated and subject to limited taxation in the Canton of Aargau due to real estate ownership. Since he submitted the tax return for the 2022 tax period to the municipality after the submission deadline (September 30, 2023) only late (October 30, 2023), a reminder fee of CHF 35.- was imposed by the municipality. The taxpayer challenged this decision and the corresponding lower court decision unsuccessfully before the Federal Court, which mainly dealt with questions of harmonized tax law and the legal basis for reminder fees.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_7/2025: Decision on the Admissibility of a Foreign Filed Legal Remedy
Summary of the Facts
The Italian citizen A.________ was imposed an indefinite entry ban to Switzerland and Liechtenstein by fedpol. His related appeal to the Federal Administrative Court was deemed late and dismissed. In response, A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court, invoking the so-called "doppia decorrenza" of Italian law, according to which the date of dispatch, not the receipt, is decisive.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_894/2024: Decision on the Compensation of a Free Legal Counsel
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted by the Geneva Criminal Court on September 1, 2023, among other things, for brawling (Art. 133 para. 1 StGB) and received a conditional fine. The compensation for his free legal counsel, Me B.________, was set at CHF 21,943.40. The appeals chamber overturned the judgment and acquitted A.________, but set the same compensation and ordered the State of Geneva to pay an additional CHF 7,296.75 for appeal costs. A.________ and his legal counsel appealed to the Federal Court to obtain higher compensation.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_626/2024: Judgment on the Validity of an Affiliate Agreement in Occupational Pension Plans
Summary of the Facts
A.________ SA concluded a retroactive affiliate agreement with the AXA Foundation for Occupational Pension Plans on November 15, 2012, effective October 1, 2012. After disputes over outstanding contributions amounting to CHF 21,570.10, AXA filed a lawsuit and prevailed before the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft. The appellant challenged the judgment of the Cantonal Court before the Federal Court, asserting the nullity of the affiliate agreement and demanding the refund of already paid contributions.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_440/2024: Judgment on Restrictions on Cattle Keeping on a Farm
Summary of the Facts
A.________, operator of a farm in the Canton of Thurgau with cattle keeping, has been repeatedly criticized since 2006 for violations of animal welfare and animal disease legislation and for serious deficiencies in animal husbandry. Repeated inspections, most recently unannounced on September 15, 2022, revealed significant animal welfare violations, after which a restriction on animal keeping was imposed. Since subsequent inspections in 2023 and 2024 revealed further deficiencies, a comprehensive restriction on cattle keeping was issued, which A.________ unsuccessfully challenged before the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1421/2024: Rejection of a Judge Due to Bias
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, requested the rejection of Judge Delphine Gonseth, who is responsible for re-deciding a criminal case against him. He justified this with a formulation from another procedure in which the defense was described as "not honest." The rejection request was declared inadmissible by the cantonal appeals instance and also dismissed if it were admissible. The appellant then filed a complaint with the Federal Court against this decision.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_528/2024: Judgment on the Obligation to Perform by Suva in Cases of Relapses and Indirect Consequences of Accidents
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________, insured with Suva, suffered several accidents in 2007, 2008, and 2020, including injuries to the knee, cervical spine, and a skull fracture. Suva denied a claim for disability pension and other benefits regarding the accidents from 2007 and 2008 as well as an obligation to perform for indirect consequences of the accident from 2020. After multiple stays at the court instances, the appellant filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_296/2025: Substitute Measures Instead of Criminal Detention in the Context of a Criminal Proceedings for Embezzlement and Violations of the BewG
Summary of the Facts
In the criminal proceedings against A.________ and her husband, in which accusations of embezzlement and violations of the Federal Act on the Acquisition of Real Estate by Persons Abroad (BewG) are raised, substitute measures were ordered to secure the criminal proceedings. There are allegations that an apartment worth USD 1,740,000 was purchased for a deceased friend and officially registered as the property of A.________ and her husband in the land registry, without notifying potential heirs.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_154/2025: Decision on Definitive Legal Opening and Late Cantonal Appeals
Summary of the Facts
A taxpayer (A.________) opposed payment orders from the State of Vaud (represented by the cantonal tax office) in two enforcement proceedings. The Justice of the Peace of the Aigle district granted the definitive legal opening. The appeals filed by the taxpayer against these decisions were declared inadmissible by the cantonal instance due to late submission. The taxpayer then filed a complaint with the Federal Court requesting to prevent the legal opening.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_681/2023: Complaint Against the Refusal of Consent to Extend the Residence Permit and Deportation from Switzerland by the SEM
Summary of the Facts
The Iraqi national A.________, residing in Switzerland since 1998, requested an extension of his residence permit. Due to his repeated criminal offenses and unsuccessful social and economic integration, the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) refused consent to extend the permit and ordered his deportation from Switzerland. A.________ contested the decision in court, ultimately leading the case to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_81/2025: Decision Regarding the Challenge of a New Land Registry Plan and Municipal Policy
Summary of the Facts
The procedure concerns a dispute over the reallocation of plots and the planned change of use in Breggia, Canton Ticino. A.________ and B.________, owners of the affected plots, raised objections to the reallocation and the corresponding municipal planning, particularly regarding the placement of a service road and its terminus. The cantonal authorities and the competent administrative court dismissed their appeals or declared them inadmissible, as a direct and current legal disadvantage for the appellants was not clearly demonstrated.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1213/2024: Decision on the Admissibility of a Criminal Legal Remedy Regarding the Seizure and Release of a Leased Vehicle
Summary of the Facts
The parties in dispute are the lessee, A.________, and the lessor, B.________ AG. The vehicle, a Land Rover RR Sport, was originally transferred to A.________ through a leasing contract for 48 months. From August 2020, A.________ fell into arrears, leading to the termination of the leasing contract by B.________ AG. Subsequently, A.________ reported the vehicle stolen. This led to a criminal investigation for breach of trust and the seizure of the vehicle by the authorities. After the vehicle was found, the seizure was lifted, prompting A.________ to file an unsuccessful legal remedy in Jura.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_281/2024: Building Law Qualification of Roof Structures
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ Cooperative received a building permit for replacement new buildings in Zurich, which was later contested by appeals and complaints. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich revoked the building permit due to exceeding the permissible building height. The Cooperative then filed a complaint in public law matters with the Federal Court. The dispute was over the building law qualification of a specific roof structure as a roof extension and whether it was unlawful and a building permit could be denied.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7F_1/2025: Non-Acceptance of a Revision Request
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ AG filed a revision request against a judgment of the Federal Court dated November 19, 2024 (7B_742/2024). However, it failed to make the timely payment of the advance costs despite several reminders and an extension.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_84/2024: Federal Court Judgment on Occupational Pensions and Issues of Over-Compensation
Summary of the Facts
The judgment concerns a dispute between A.________, his former pension institution (Caisse de retraite du groupe B.________), and his former employer (B.________ Asset Management SA). A.________ requested the payment of higher disability benefits from occupational pensions because the contributions paid did not correspond to his actual income. The pension institution reduced his benefits due to potential over-compensation. The legal dispute revolves around the calculation of the insured wage and possible over-compensation in the case of disability pensions.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4D_55/2025: Decision Regarding the Definitive Legal Opening and the Admissibility of a Subsidiary Constitutional Legal Remedy.
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ (debtor) contested the legal opening of the payment order issued by B.________ and C.________ (creditors). The first instance court of the Canton of Geneva granted the definitive legal opening on January 6, 2025. An appeal by the appellant against this decision was declared inadmissible by the Civil Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Geneva on February 3, 2025. The appellant then filed a subsidiary constitutional complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_148/2025: Non-Acceptance in Criminal Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The appellant raised accusations against B.________ from the Victim Assistance Graubünden as well as against cantonal authorities. The Public Prosecutor's Office of Graubünden ordered non-acceptance of the criminal proceedings, which was confirmed by the Higher Court of the Canton of Graubünden. The appellant then filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_289/2025: Decision on the Extension of Preventive Detention
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court is dealing with the extension of preventive detention, which was ordered against A.________ due to his conviction for crimes against humanity. The appellant requests his release from detention, invoking the right to a speedy trial and alleging bias on the part of the members of the Federal Criminal Court as well as the rejection of his request for free legal assistance. The Federal Court dismisses the complaint.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.