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 rulings. For the remaining 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.
9C_424/2024: Dispute over Tax Domicile of a Holding Company between the Cantons of Zurich and Obwalden
Summary of Facts
The A.________ AG, a holding company with its statutory seat in the Canton of Obwalden, holds stakes in companies both in the Canton of Obwalden and in the Canton of Zurich. The Cantonal Tax Office of Zurich asserted the tax liability of A.________ AG in the Canton of Zurich starting in 2017, based on the claim that the actual management of the company is located in the Canton of Zurich. After being dismissed by cantonal legal remedies, A.________ AG filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Summary of Considerations
The complaint was submitted in a timely manner and is admissible (Art. 82 lit. a, Art. 86 Abs. 1 lit. d BGG). Inter-cantonal double taxation can also include legally binding tax assessments from another canton (E. 1.2). The Federal Court examines whether the actual management of the company is likely taking place in the Canton of Zurich and whether the Canton of Zurich correctly applied harmonized cantonal tax law (E. 3.2). The actual management is located where significant business decisions are made and day-to-day operations are conducted (E. 3.2.1). The Canton of Zurich could not demonstrate the focus of management with a high degree of probability during the relevant period (E. 4.4.1, E. 4.4.2). The failure to determine the exact location of the actual management and the inadequate weighting of evidence lead to the conclusion that no tax sovereignty of the Canton of Zurich is established. The complaint is upheld (E. 4.4).
Summary of Ruling
The complaint was upheld, the ruling of the administrative court was overturned, and the costs were reassigned.
2C_17/2024: Admissibility of the Complaint Regarding the Remand Decision on Incineration Prices for Municipal Waste
Summary of Facts
The Inter-Municipal Institution Limeco, consisting of several Zurich municipalities, operates a waste incineration plant, among other things. The Federal Price Supervisor ordered a reduction of the incineration price for municipal waste from CHF 150 to CHF 102 per ton in 2020. After the Federal Administrative Court overturned this order and remanded the matter back to the Price Supervisor, Limeco filed a complaint with the Federal Court to contest the remand and definitively overturn the order.
Summary of Considerations
(1.1–1.2) The Federal Court examines its jurisdiction and the formal requirements of the complaint. This is fundamentally admissible in the context of public law matters. (1.3–1.5.6) The contested ruling is a remand decision and therefore an interim decision. The requirements for a challenge under Art. 93 Abs. 1 BGG are not met. There is neither an irremediable disadvantage nor a sufficient economic justification for the process. The general complexity of the reassessment by the Price Supervisor is not above average and does not justify a preemption of a final decision. (1.6.1–1.6.3) The complaint cannot be made under Art. 92 BGG either, as there is no independently established jurisdiction decision.
Summary of Ruling
The complaint is not upheld and the costs are imposed on the complainant.
5A_361/2025: Decision on the Complaint Regarding the Return of a Child and Rejection of the Judge's Recusal
Summary of Facts
A.________ and B.________ are the unmarried parents of the child C.________, born in 2017. A.________ had taken the child to Switzerland after an unlawful relocation from his father in France. The cantonal authorities and the Federal Court had previously decided on the return of the child to France. A.________ later requested the recusal of the president of the cantonal administrative judiciary due to alleged bias. This recusal was deemed inadmissible. With the current complaint before the Federal Court, A.________ again demanded the suspension of the return as well as the repetition of the process with an unbiased panel of judges.
Summary of Considerations
1. (1) The Federal Court noted that the question of whether the contested decision is final or provisional may remain open, as the complaint is admissible regardless. The formal requirements of the complaint are met.
2. (3.1) The cantonal legal basis requires that a ground for recusal against a judge be raised in the context of a complaint procedure if the facts are discovered only after the conclusion of the proceedings. Since A.________ did not use this possibility in the previous proceedings before the Federal Court, her request for recusal is inadmissible.
3. (3.2) The arguments of the complainant regarding a purported temporal connection between her requests and the treatment by the judge are unfounded and contradict statutory and judicial provisions.
4. (3.3) The further formal and material complaints of the complainant regarding the handling of her recusal requests and the alleged bias of the judge were also rejected as unfounded.
5. (3.4) The Federal Court pointed out that A.________ is evidently attempting to evade the legally binding return decision by repeatedly bringing proceedings before different instances. It warned against the risk of abuse and the consequences in the event of a repetition of such actions.
6. (4) The complaint was dismissed, as was the request for legal aid, since the prospects of success of the proceedings were hopeless from the outset. A.________ was ordered to pay the procedural costs, and her further requests for compensation were denied.
Summary of Ruling
The complaint was dismissed, the request for legal aid was denied, and A.________ was ordered to pay the procedural costs.
8C_612/2024: Objection Against the Decision on the Revision of an Accident Insurance Benefit
Summary of Facts
The complaint is directed against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Vaud, which ordered a revision of the accident insurance benefit for an injury to the right shoulder (accident-related fracture of the right upper arm and consequential damages). The accident insurance rejected a revision request, while the Cantonal Court decided in favor of the insured person and remanded the case back to the accident insurance for further examination. The dispute concerns whether new medical findings constitute sufficient grounds for a revision according to Art. 53 Abs. 1 ATSG.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_549/2024: Complaint Regarding the Restoration Order in Connection with Renovations and Change of Use of Basement Rooms
Summary of Facts
The complainant, owner of a condominium unit in the basement of a multi-family house in Neuenegg, converted three units registered as craft rooms without building permit in accordance with the 1965 building permit into two studios and rented them out. Following a report, the building authority of the municipality of Neuenegg ordered the dismantling of the apartments, while also allowing for the subsequent submission of a building application. After the complainant did not submit a building application and her cantonal legal remedies were unsuccessful, she brought the complaint in public law matters to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_313/2024: Ruling on the Primary Residence Requirement in Pontresina
Summary of Facts
A.A.________ and B.A.________, owners of an apartment in Pontresina that is subject to the municipal primary residence requirement, allowed this apartment to be used free of charge by a resident of the municipality (C.________). The municipality did not recognize the use as primary residence use according to Art. 2 Abs. 2 and 3 ZWG and required the owners to use it properly. Complaints were made to the Administrative Court and the Federal Court, with both instances deeming the use by C.________ as insufficient.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_135/2025: Decision on the Concordat Against Violence at Sporting Events
Summary of Facts
A.________, a supporter of FC Sion, received a prohibition and reporting obligation until April 2026 after a violent incident on July 27, 2024, before a football match, in which he was involved as a leading member of an ultra group. The police and cantonal authorities justified the measures due to his violent behavior and referred to the concordat against violence at sporting events. The case was brought before the Federal Court after the Cantonal Court dismissed the objection.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_193/2025: Ruling on the Suspensive Effect of a Complaint in the Field of Occupational Pension Insurance
Summary of Facts
The ruling concerns occupational pension insurance in connection with a decision by the Bernese BVG and Foundation Supervisory Authority (BBSA) against the A.________ Foundation. The A.________ Foundation was instructed to return pensioner assets or obtain approvals to take over these assets. It filed a complaint against parts of the decision and requested the suspensive effect of the complaint. The Federal Administrative Court denied the granting of suspensive effect, which was subsequently appealed by the A.________ Foundation to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_221/2024: Maintenance Contribution in the Context of Protective Measures of the Marital Community
Summary of Facts
The parties (A.________ and B.________) have been married since 1991 and have three adult children. A.________ currently lives in Spain but is still registered in Switzerland. In May 2022, A.________ requested protective measures of the marital community and demanded a maintenance payment of initially CHF 14,312.55, later CHF 10,000 monthly from B.________. The president of the District Civil Court of Lausanne provisionally ordered a maintenance payment of CHF 4,000 but later reduced it in a final decision to CHF 1,800. Both parties appealed. The individual judge of the Cantonal Court dismissed the appeal of A.________ and partially upheld that of B.________ by deciding that A.________ has no entitlement to maintenance from January 1, 2022. A.________ then filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_250/2024: Decision on LAVI and Legal Aid
Summary of Facts
A.________ applied to the cantonal Department of Education, Culture and Sports of Neuchâtel for compensation under the Law on Assistance to Victims of Crime (LAVI), including coverage of legal fees. The Department rejected the coverage of legal fees, stating that there was no necessity for legal representation. The same was decided by the cantonal court for the legal proceedings. A.________ subsequently filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
4A_659/2024: Ruling on Contract for Rental Property and Consequential Damage Due to the Defect of the Property
Summary of Facts
A doctor (tenant) rented a medical practice space from a company (landlord). From 2016 to 2019, extensive construction work caused significant emissions such as noise, dust, and vibrations in the rental property, which disturbed the tenant's activities. The tenant demanded a rent reduction as well as compensation for lost profits. After lengthy court proceedings, the landlord was granted a reduced rent reduction and additional compensation for two specific years.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_340/2025: Dispute Over the Enforcement of a Return Order of a Child Following International Child Abduction
Summary of Facts
A. is the mother of C., who was unlawfully taken to Switzerland by her, although his habitual residence is with his father B. in France. Following the decision of the competent cantonal authorities to return the child, A. opposed the enforcement measures of the APEA. The dispute concerns the enforcement of the return order, particularly regarding the proportional design of coercive measures and the consideration of the child's welfare.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_307/2024: Dispute over the Assumption of Costs for a Means of Disability Insurance
Summary of Facts
A.________, suffering from multiple sclerosis, requested the disability insurance to finance a lift in connection with the purchase of a house. The insurance had already supported other aids. Regarding the lift, the disability insurance refused to cover the costs but offered no substitute provision, such as financing a Monte-Ramp. A.________ unsuccessfully appealed to the cantonal court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_1187/2024: Decision on the Inadmissibility of a Right to Appeal in a Criminal Proceedings
Summary of Facts
A.A. and B.A. filed a criminal complaint against a third party for alleged criminal actions, which included the blocking of accounts and the allegedly unlawful handling of assets. A.A. and B.A. filed an appeal against the partial non-initiation of the criminal investigation. The cantonal instance partially dismissed A.A.'s appeal and declared B.A.'s appeal inadmissible. They both filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
4A_152/2025: Ruling on Rental Property and Obvious Inadmissibility
Summary of Facts
The tenants signed a lease in 2022 for a 6-room apartment, which according to the building plans has an area of 130 m². Problems with room temperature in winter and complaints regarding the description and condition of the rental property led to a challenge of the initial rent. Cantonal court instances reduced the annual rent from CHF 35,760 to CHF 29,472 and granted a rent reduction of 10% for the period with heating problems. The tenants subsequently filed an appeal with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_569/2024: Ruling on Inter-Cantonal Tax Sovereignty and the Actual Management of a Holding Company
Summary of Facts
The A.________ AG, with its statutory seat in U.________ (Canton Obwalden), was affected by an unlimited tax liability of the Canton of Zurich, as it was determined that the actual management of the company is located in the Canton of Zurich. The lower courts relied on various indicators such as the activities of the board members and managing directors as well as the connections to the subsidiary B.________ AG in Zurich. The tax administration of the Canton of Obwalden also taxed A.________ AG. A.________ AG complained about inter-cantonal double taxation and requested the annulment of both the ruling of the Zurich lower court and the tax assessments from Obwalden.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.