Latest Rulings of the Federal Court
Here you will find the latest rulings of the Federal Court (BGer) from bger.ch. For the first three rulings, we present detailed summaries including facts, considerations, and dispositive parts. For the further 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.
1C_489/2024: Decision on Building Permit in Grimisuat
Summary of Facts
The owner of parcel 3009 in Grimisuat applied for a building permit for two garden houses, a pergola, and the extension of a retaining wall. The neighbor filed an objection, particularly concerning compliance with the permissible maximum height of the retaining wall of 1.50 m. The cantonal authorities rejected the objection and partially granted the building permit. A.________ requested the annulment of these decisions and the procurement of an altimetric report. The cantonal court dismissed the appeal as far as it concerned the retaining wall but partly declared it unfounded regarding one of the garden houses. The neighbor then appealed to the Federal Court.
Summary of Considerations
1. The Federal Court notes that the appeal against the decision of the last cantonal court instance in the building permit area is generally permissible (Art. 82 ff. and Art. 91 LTF). The appellant is entitled to present her case and submitted her legal remedy in due time. 2. According to Art. 42 para. 1 and 2 LTF, a sufficient and specific justification is required to allow an appeal. The Federal Court confirms that the cantonal instance correctly examined the double justification for the legality of the contested decision. The appellant could not sufficiently contest the findings regarding the maximum height of the retaining wall. 3. The appellant claims procedural deficiencies and requests the procurement of an altimetric report, which the cantonal instance deemed unnecessary. According to the Federal Court, there was no violation of the law in the finding that the appellant did not raise any decisive objections against the submitted building plans. 4. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed regarding the permissible points. The costs of the proceedings and the compensation for the opposing party are imposed on the appellant.
Summary of Dispositive
The appeal was dismissed and the costs were imposed on the appellant.
8C_208/2024: Refund of Incorrectly Received Social Security Benefits
Summary of Facts
An insured person subsequently requested disability pension benefits from the IV office, which were recognized as unlawful after a final decision. The insurers disputed the refund of an amount of CHF 28,307.30, which had been transferred to the Suva-MV as part of an overcompensation. After the administrative court accepted the obligation to refund, this was confirmed by the Federal Court.
Summary of Considerations
1. **(E.1)** The Federal Court examines the alleged violation of federal law and notes that it can apply the law ex officio. 2. **(E.2)** It is established that unlawfully received benefits must be refunded according to Art. 25 ATSG, provided that no significant hardship exists and limitation periods are observed. 3. **(E.3.1)** The lower instance affirmed the refund claim, as the relevant limitation periods according to Art. 25 para. 2 ATSG were respected. 4. **(E.4.2)** The issue of observing a deadline regarding a procedural revision is moot, as the refund claim was not based on a final decision. 5. **(E.5.2)** The new decision of September 25, 2023, regarding the recovery by the IV office was made within the three-year limitation period (Art. 25 para. 2 ATSG). The appellant's arguments regarding legal certainty by the passage of time were not sufficiently substantiated and were disregarded. 6. **(E.6)** The court costs are imposed on the unsuccessful Suva-MV.
Summary of Dispositive
The appeal was dismissed and court costs of CHF 2,000 were imposed.
9F_1/2025: Decision on the Admissibility of a Revision Request
Summary of Facts
The appellant A.________ requested a revision of a Federal Court ruling (9D_17/2024), which concerned his previous legal remedy request that had been declared inadmissible. Essentially, it concerns the tax law issue of the refusal of a tax and penalty reduction for the periods 2014 to 2016 in connection with the cantonal and federal direct taxes. The current request was linked to a demand for suspensive effect.
Summary of Considerations
The revision of a Federal Court ruling is only possible in extraordinary circumstances considering Articles 121 ff. BGG. Such requests must be examined by the originally deciding chamber. A.________ submitted the request in due time. He claimed that the previous ruling ignored essential facts or drew incorrect conclusions. He also referred to new facts that had emerged after the previous ruling, such as newly initiated debt enforcement proceedings from January 2025. The Federal Court stated: - That new facts or evidence cannot generally be considered after a ruling (Art. 123 para. 2 BGG). - That there are no unconsidered relevant facts or conclusions recognizable. - That arguments regarding tax reduction cannot be materially reconsidered, as the original appeal was declared inadmissible and therefore cannot be the subject of the revision. The allegedly new facts (debt enforcement from January 2025) were excluded, as they do not stem from the original proceedings and arose after the original decision. There is also no reasoning that meets the conditions for a possibility of revision. The unsubstantiated and formally insufficiently justified request is therefore dismissed as inadmissible. The requested suspensive effect is moot. The court costs of CHF 1,500 are fully borne by the appellant.
Summary of Dispositive
The revision request was declared inadmissible, and the court costs were imposed on the appellant.
8C_131/2025: Judgment on Procedural Prerequisites in Connection with Cantonal Social Security Law
Summary of Facts
The appellant A.________ contested a ruling of the Social Security Court of the Canton of Zurich, which denied the individual premium reduction claim for the year 2022 and established a refund obligation due to provisional overpayments. The main point of contention was the inclusion of the imputed rental value as income. The respondent is the Social Security Institution of the Canton of Zurich.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_445/2024: Decision to Suspend Benefits Due to False Statements in Connection with Unemployment Compensation
Summary of Facts
The respondent A.________ falsely stated in his unemployment compensation form for August 2023 that he was not incapacitated for work, even though he was temporarily unable to work after an accident. The unemployment fund of the Canton of St. Gallen subsequently ordered a two-day suspension of entitlement. The lower instance annulled this decision referring to the principle of proportionality. The unemployment fund then appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_168/2025: Question of Non-Admittance Regarding an Appeal Concerning Announcement of Seizure
Summary of Facts
The appellant was pursued by the Swiss Confederation, represented by Serafe AG. The definitive legal opening was granted, and the debt enforcement office announced the seizure. The appellant appealed against the decision, which remained unsuccessful up to the Cantonal Court of Zurich. Subsequently, she filed an appeal with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_887/2024: Decision on the Right to Relationships with Children
Summary of Facts
(1) Two children of the appellant have been living with their father since 2022 and are no longer in care. The mother's visitation rights were restricted by the Tribunal de protection des adultes et de l'enfant in the Canton of Geneva, which was confirmed by the cantonal instance in a decision of November 15, 2024.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_161/2025: Substantive Review of a Request for the Effect of Suspending an Appeal in Adult Protection
Summary of Facts
A.________ requested measures for her father B.________ and demanded a new independent assessment after the regional authority revoked the previously issued guardianship. The president of the appeals chamber of the canton did not grant this request for suspensive effect. A.________ then filed an appeal with the Federal Court to obtain the suspensive effect and to annul the previous decisions or refer them back for re-evaluation.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_680/2024: Property Law Dispute in the Context of a Divorce
Summary of Facts
A.________ and B.________ were married in 1999 and had a community of property (Art. 221 ff. ZGB). In the context of the divorce, at B.________'s request, the property law dispute was conducted before the cantonal courts up to the Federal Court. Points of contention included particularly compensation payments due to investments made by the respondent from her own property during the marriage and before the marriage. The Cantonal Court ordered A.________ to pay CHF 319,735.85. He contested the ruling and requested a significant reduction of the compensation payment.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_212/2024: Decision on the Forfeiture of a Security Deposit and Violation of the Right to Be Heard
Summary of Facts
The A.________ AG and the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden contest a decision of the Cantonal Court of Appenzell Innerrhoden, which annulled the forfeiture of a security deposit of CHF 300,000. This bail was demanded in connection with a criminal investigation due to financial crimes by B.B.________. The bail was provided by the parents of the accused. The forfeiture was ordered by the Public Prosecutor's Office because B.B.________ violated an exit ban.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
6B_434/2024: Criminal Conviction of A.________
Summary of Facts
A.________ was charged with forgery (Art. 251 para. 1 StGB), commercial fraud (Art. 146 para. 1 and 2 StGB), and a violation of the Foreigners Act (Art. 118 para. 1 aAuG, now LEI). The allegations include the intentional forgery of employment contracts, deception against authorities to obtain a residence permit, as well as the repeated execution of a fraud system based on the creation of shell companies and false invoices. The aim was unjust enrichment and financing the lifestyle of the accused and his accomplice.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
6B_14/2025: Judgment on Serious Violation of Traffic Rules and Sentencing
Summary of Facts
The appellant A.________ was convicted by the District Court of March and in the appellate instance by the Cantonal Court of Schwyz for intentional serious violation of traffic rules. The point of contention was an insufficient distance when driving behind another vehicle at a speed of 100 km/h. The proceedings reached the Federal Court, where A.________ requested a acquittal or a lighter sentence.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2C_171/2025: Decision on the Dismissal of a Proceeding Due to Withdrawal of Appeal
Summary of Facts
The parents of a child with special educational needs opposed the official assignment of their son to the Innerschwyz Educational Center (HZI) and kept him away from school, which led to an administrative fine. An appeal against this was withdrawn by the parents at the cantonal level because the desired discussion about the school form for their son was not the subject of the proceedings. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Schwyz dismissed the proceedings as moot due to withdrawal. An appeal against the dismissal decision was filed with the Federal Court, which was deemed obviously inadmissible.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_225/2024: Ruling on the Lifting of a Seizure Order and Violation of Legal Hearing Rights
Summary of Facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden conducted a criminal investigation against B.________ due to various alleged offenses. To secure assets and procedural costs, they seized the rental claims from a property acquired by B.________. The Cantonal Court of Appenzell Innerrhoden lifted the seizure order. The Public Prosecutor's Office and the A.________ AG, as the injured company, appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.