Latest Rulings of the Federal Court
Here you will find the most recent rulings of the Federal Court (BGer) from bger.ch. For the first three rulings, we present detailed summaries including facts, considerations, and dispositions. For the other rulings, you will find a summary of the facts. The complete summaries of all rulings are available on the portal of Lexplorer. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest rulings tailored to your areas of law.
6B_167/2025: Non-admission of a revision request
Summary of the Facts
A.________ requested the revision of a final ruling of the Lucerne Cantonal Court, which had found him guilty of qualified rape, attempted qualified rape, qualified property damage, and threats. The revision request was rejected by the Cantonal Court. An appeal against this decision was filed with the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
1. The Federal Court states that new evidence is only admissible if it was induced by the prior decision (E.2). The evidence submitted by the appellant is partly from after the contested decision and therefore cannot be considered (E.2).
2. The complaint regarding the alleged involvement of a cantonal judge is dismissed, as the decision was issued by a single judge and the complaint was also filed late (E.3).
3. The subject of the proceedings is solely the decision on the rejection of the revision request. Criticism of the original judgment of the Cantonal Court from 2021 is not taken into account (E.4).
4. The lower court addressed the appellant's request for a surgical expert opinion and justified its non-necessity (E.5).
5. The new evidence claimed was assessed as inadmissible or irrelevant and unfounded:
- Email correspondence between doctors and photo of an injury: The evidence provides no relevant new insights (E.6.2).
- Document from the residents' registration office: The documented registration time does not change the relevance of a presumed time of offense (E.6.3).
6. The appeal is unfounded. No cogent new insights or relevant grounds for revision were presented. Repeated arguments from earlier proceedings are also not admissible under revision law (E.6.4).
Summary of the Disposition
The appeal was rejected, the request for free legal assistance was denied, and court costs were imposed.
7B_464/2024: Ruling regarding compensation after the discontinuation of a criminal proceeding
Summary of the Facts
The City Court of Zurich discontinued a criminal investigation against A.________ for participating in an unauthorized demonstration and violating COVID-19 measures. It waived compensation for A.________ and charged the procedural costs to the state treasury. A.________ appealed against this decision, which was rejected by the Zurich Cantonal Court, imposing a court fee on him. Before the Federal Court, A.________ requested the annulment of this decision and the determination of his compensation.
Summary of the Considerations
1. (Art. 78 para. 1, Art. 80 and Art. 90 BGG) The appeal to the Federal Court is admissible, as the requirements are met. 2. (Art. 429 para. 1 lit. a, Art. 429 para. 2, Art. 3 para. 2 lit. c, Art. 107 para. 1 lit. d StPO as well as Art. 29 para. 2 BV) - (2.1) The Cantonal Court denied a refusal to act, as the appellant could have presented his claims on his own initiative. - (2.2) Although A.________ was not heard regarding the quantification of his compensation claims before the discontinuation of the proceedings, which constitutes a violation of the right to be heard, this is not serious, as it could be remedied in the appellate procedure before the lower instance. The comprehensive cognition of the Cantonal Court allowed for a free review of the factual and legal situation. - (2.3) The lower court examined the appellant's compensation claims materially and denied them. This stands according to federal law. 3. (Art. 66 para. 1 BGG) Given the outcome of the proceedings, the appellant is liable for costs.
Summary of the Disposition
The appeal is dismissed, and the court costs are imposed on the appellant.
8C_193/2025: Ruling on the non-admission question in a complaint regarding disability pension
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, addressed the Federal Court after the Social Security Court of the Canton of Zurich issued a ruling in favor of the IV Office of the Canton of Zurich. This had decided not to grant the appellant a disability pension. The subject of the dispute was the process prerequisites according to the Federal Court Act (BGG).
Summary of the Considerations
- **(1)** According to Art. 95 BGG, a violation of federal law can be appealed. The requests and their justification must be presented in a concise form, including specific references to provisions violated by the lower instance (BGE 134 V 53 E. 3.3). General criticism of the ruling or mere allegations are not sufficient. - **(2)** The cantonal court confirmed the decision of the IV Office that the appellant is not entitled to a disability pension. It evaluated the statements of the parties and considered the available files. - **(3)** The appellant could not demonstrate in his submission that the factual findings of the lower court were obviously incorrect or arbitrary (Art. 97 para. 1 BGG). He also did not indicate how federal law was violated. - **(4)** Due to the insufficient reasoning, the Federal Court did not consider the appeal in the simplified procedure according to Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b BGG. - **(5)** Court costs are not levied in this case (Art. 66 para. 1 sentence 2 BGG).
Summary of the Disposition
The Federal Court did not consider the appeal and did not impose court costs.
6B_3/2025: Ruling on the order for a stationary therapeutic measure
Summary of the Facts
The appellant contests the stationary therapeutic measure ordered by the Cantonal Court of Aargau in accordance with Art. 59 para. 1 StGB. He particularly criticizes the quality of the psychiatric assessment and the proportionality of the measure. The Federal Court examines the appeal regarding its legal and formal grounds but does not consider the factual objections.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_1222/2024: Ruling regarding issues of the disqualification of magistrates in a criminal process
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ requested the disqualification of members of the criminal chamber of the Cantonal Court of Freiburg and of the prosecutor Raphaël Bourquin due to alleged bias. The case concerned a criminal complaint against the prosecutor for the accusation of breach of official secrecy after an incident on February 8, 2021. The requests were rejected by the lower courts, after which A.________ approached the Federal Court.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2D_27/2024: Ruling regarding the extension of a residence permit for educational purposes
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, an Albanian national, applied in 2023 for the extension of her residence permit for educational purposes after transferring from the University of Zurich to the Zurich University of Applied Sciences. The Migration Office and the cantonal authorities denied the extension and ordered her expulsion from the Schengen area. With a subsidiary constitutional complaint, she requested the Federal Court to annul the cantonal decision and extend her residence permit.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
4D_37/2025: Ruling regarding definitive legal opening and non-admission of appeals
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed complaints with the Federal Court against several decisions of the Cantonal Court of Aargau concerning legal opening matters. The Cantonal Court did not consider the complaints. The Federal Court set a deadline and subsequently a grace period for the payment of cost advances. The advances were not paid on time.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
4D_57/2025: Decision on the admissibility of a civil appeal and subsidiary constitutional complaint
Summary of the Facts
The appellant submitted a request for precautionary measures and a request for free legal assistance to the Regional Court of Berner Jura-Seeland. Both requests were rejected and not included in the proceedings. The Cantonal Court of Bern also did not consider the appeal and complaint against the decision of the Regional Court. The appellant then turned to the Federal Court, which examined the submission.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_223/2025: Non-admission of a criminal complaint and non-admission of the appeal
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed a criminal complaint against B.________ AG in liquidation, which was not considered by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zug. The subsequent complaint to the Cantonal Court of Zug was also not addressed. The appellant went to the Federal Court requesting the annulment of the lower court's decision.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
6B_843/2024: Ruling regarding criminal law
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted by the Cantonal Court of Vaud for simple bodily harm, property damage, and serious violations of traffic rules. During a critical mass bike demonstration in Lausanne, he became violent after a confrontation with cyclists, injuring several people and damaging bicycles. His appeal was partially rejected and the ruling confirmed, supplemented with compensation for one of the injured cyclists.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2C_350/2024: Decision regarding family reunification within the framework of an EU/EFTA residence permit
Summary of the Facts
The Italian national B.________, who holds an EU/EFTA residence permit in Switzerland, applied in 2023 for the family reunification of his mother A.________, a Kosovar national, to reside with him in Switzerland. The request was rejected by the Migration Office of the Canton of Zurich and in the subsequent appellate instances, as the necessary proof of dependency for family reunification and regular financial support from her son were not sufficiently demonstrated. The appellant brought her appeal to the Federal Court, which addressed the evidentiary requirements and the assessment of evidence by the lower authorities.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
6B_1077/2023: Ruling regarding fraud and sentencing
Summary of the Facts
A.________, managing director of B.________ GmbH, was convicted of fraud. Over the years, he advised the private complainant C.________ and persuaded him to transfer his portability capital from D.________ AG to an account of B.________ GmbH for his own use. This was done through deception using partly concealed and undisclosed documents, without the money being invested for the private complainant. The Cantonal Court of Solothurn found a violation of the acceleration requirement and reduced the prison sentence to ten months. Before the Federal Court, the appellant challenged the rationale for the conviction and the sentencing.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_158/2024: Withdrawal of warning: withdrawal of driving license due to serious traffic rule violation
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ drove in Tägerwilen at more than double the allowed maximum speed and caused a collision with a turning vehicle. The accident resulted in total loss of both vehicles and minor injuries to the occupants. The District Court of Kreuzlingen sentenced A.________ for qualified serious traffic rule violation to a conditional prison sentence of twelve months and a fine of CHF 1,500.--. The Road Traffic Office of the Canton of Thurgau subsequently withdrew his driving license for 24 months. The appellant requested a reduction of the driving license withdrawal to 12 months.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
4F_12/2025: Decisions on the revision request and free legal assistance
Summary of the Facts
The applicant requested the revision of the Federal Court ruling from February 25, 2025 (4A_16/2025), which had dismissed a complaint due to lack of legal sufficiency. She claimed to have been verbally threatened and humiliated by the opposing party after the ruling was announced. The Federal Court examined the information under the provisions of the grounds for revision according to Art. 121-123 BGG.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
6B_296/2024: Ruling regarding the accusation of human trafficking and usurpation against two defendants
Summary of the Facts
The plaintiff A.________, who moved from Morocco to Switzerland in 2011, worked for several years in the household of the two defendants C.B.________ and B.B.________ without being paid for it. She filed a criminal complaint in 2018 for human trafficking and abuse. The lower courts did not confirm the allegations; the Federal Court reviewed these decisions based on the applicable law.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_176/2025: Ruling on the reopening of a criminal proceeding
Summary of the Facts
The ruling concerns the request of A.A.________ and B.________ AG to reopen a criminal proceeding that was not initiated in 2010 due to allegations of abuse of office, forgery, and fraud. Several appeals from the affected parties against the original non-initiation failed in 2011 and 2025. The Cantonal Court of Thurgau decided in January 2025 on a new submission and did not consider it, after which the appellants approached the Federal Court.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9G_1/2025: Correction of a federal court disposition in connection with turnover duties
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Tax Administration (ESTV) submitted a correction request for the ruling 9C_41/2024 of the Federal Court from March 26, 2025. The ruling contained an error in the disposition that incorrectly stated the refund amount. The erroneous amount of CHF 131,188.35 should correctly have been CHF 131,118.35.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2C_229/2025: Ruling regarding non-admission decision in connection with an entry ban
Summary of the Facts
The State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) issued a three-year entry ban against A.________ on March 5, 2025, valid from September 10, 2027, to September 9, 2030, and ordered his registration in the Schengen Information System (SIS). A.________ filed a complaint against this decision with the Federal Administrative Court, which was not addressed due to a violation of formal requirements. A.________ then filed a complaint with the Federal Court, represented by his wife.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2C_77/2023: Complaint against the non-examination of a request for a residence permit according to hardship provision
Summary of the Facts
The appellant 1, having been in Switzerland since 2006, entered from Mongolia and submitted an asylum request under a false identity, which was definitively rejected in 2009. The expulsion was not complied with, and the appellant went underground, living illegally and starting a family. With her son B.A.________ and her newborn daughter C.A.________, she applied for a hardship permit, which was not materially examined by the competent authority. The cantonal authorities and the State Secretariat rejected the applications.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_423/2024: Binding nature of customs declarations regarding VOC duties
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ AG, a trading company, requested a reduction of the VOC duties for the year 2021 after the Federal Office for Customs and Border Security (BAZG) corrected and increased the taxable amount of volatile organic compounds based on the customs export documents. The lower instance found that only the customs declaration can be binding in determining the export quantity. A.________ AG then filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_309/2024: Substitute performance: Dispute over the disqualification request in a public law procedure
Summary of the Facts
The owner of a property in the municipality of Warth-Weiningen requests the disqualification of two officials from the Office for the Environment of the Canton of Thurgau in a procedure for substitute performance. The lower instances rejected the disqualification request, after which the owner filed a final complaint with the Federal Court.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_674/2024: Ruling on the denial of a disability pension in the context of accident insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a construction worker insured with Suva against accidents, suffered a bimalleolar dislocation fracture on the right foot in 2021. Suva provided treatment and daily allowance benefits until January 2023 and awarded a 15% impairment compensation. A disability pension was denied due to a disability degree of only about 5%. The Insurance Court of the Canton of Aargau confirmed this decision, after which A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_204/2025: Inadmissibility of a criminal law appeal
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed an appeal with the Federal Court against a decision of the Chamber of Criminal Appeal and Revision of the Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva, which had rejected her disqualification requests against Judge Gaëlle Van Hove. The appeal contained numerous formal and material defects, including a missing valid electronic signature and an insufficient justification.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_139/2025: Appeal against the order of custody according to Art. 62c para. 4 StGB
Summary of the Facts
The procedure concerns the order of custody according to Art. 62c para. 4 StGB. The appellant A.________ requested, among other things, to exclude the Public Prosecutor's Office from the procedure, to assign him a second official defender or a forensic expert of his choice, as well as the disqualification of the expert Dr. B.________. The Cantonal Court of Bern largely dismissed the appeal and only partially upheld the disqualification of the expert. A.________ then filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Court.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
4A_388/2024: Decision on the alleged employment contract in the psychotherapeutic delegation
Summary of the Facts
The parties to the dispute entered into a "contract for psychotherapeutic delegation," in which the plaintiff provided psychotherapeutic services under the supervision of the defendant. Additionally, there was a supplementary sublease agreement for premises. Disagreement existed particularly over whether the contract concluded between the parties could be classified as an employment contract. Following the judgment of the cantonal court, the existence of an employment relationship was denied, as the parties had no actual and mutual intention to establish such a relationship.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_296/2025: Ruling on a civil case regarding care and placement for support purposes
Summary of the Facts
A.________ has suffered from severe psychiatric and personality disorders since his youth, combined with a long-standing drug addiction and multiple relapses. Numerous support and placement measures have been ordered over the years. The decision of the Tribunal de protection de l’adulte et de l’enfant of the Canton of Geneva from March 20, 2025 confirmed the stationary placement order, which was issued on January 30, 2025, as superprovisional. The measure was deemed necessary by the cantonal court as the previous clinic could not provide the required protection and framework. A.________ appealed against this decision to the Federal Court.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2C_568/2024: Decision regarding family reunification
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, a Pakistani national with a Swiss residence permit, applied in December 2021 for the reunification of his second wife and his son from his first marriage. The lower instances rejected the request on the grounds that the statutory reunification period according to Art. 47 para. 1 AIG had already expired and that no significant family reasons according to Art. 47 para. 4 AIG existed.
The complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.