Latest Judgments of the Federal Court
Here you will find the latest 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 portal of Lexplorer. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest judgments tailored to your areas of law.
5A_702/2024: Judgment on Child and Spousal Support in Divorce Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and B.________, parents of a daughter, have been separated since 2018. In the context of the divorce proceedings, B.________ requested provisional alimony. The District Court partially granted the request. The Court of Appeal of the Canton of Aargau adjusted the alimony payments. A.________ then filed a complaint with the Federal Court, contesting the amount of alimony and the permissibility of transferring bonuses.
Summary of the Considerations
1. (1.1) The Federal Court confirms the admissibility of the complaint in civil matters, as it concerns a cantonal final decision of last instance. The dispute value is met. (1.2) It is noted that A.________ has validly requested the annulment of certain dispositive numbers of the Court of Appeal.
2. It is established that only violations of constitutional rights can be raised. The reasoning must be clear and substantiated according to Art. 106 para. 2 BGG. Appellate criticism is not reviewed.
3. (3.1) The complainant raises substantive violations of the law, which cannot be reviewed. His allegation of arbitrariness is also insufficiently substantiated. (3.2) An arbitrary finding of facts is similarly not sufficiently demonstrated. His criticism remains appellate and does not meet the requirements.
4. The accusation of a violation of the right to be heard is examined, but is not recognized due to insufficient reasoning and lack of presentation of a possible relevance to the outcome.
5. The complaint is dismissed. The court costs are borne by the complainant.
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaint is dismissed and the court costs are imposed on the complainant.
8C_608/2024: Rejection of a Disability Pension by the IV Office of the Canton of Aargau
Summary of the Facts
The insured A.________, who indicated psychosomatic disorders and depression, applied in November 2020 for benefits from the disability insurance. After medical assessment and a resilience training, the IV Office of the Canton of Aargau rejected the pension request. The cantonal insurance court confirmed the decision, after which the insured filed a complaint with the Federal Court, requesting the granting of a full disability pension or further investigations.
Summary of the Considerations
**1.** The Federal Court, as an appellate instance, only examines the points raised in the complaint, based on the factual findings of the lower court, unless these are obviously incorrect or legally flawed.
**2.** The central question was the violation of federal law by the lower court, particularly regarding the denial of a pension entitlement.
**3.** The lower court acted correctly according to the applicable legal foundations regarding the further development of the IV (WEIV) and applied both the old and new provisions of the IVG and the ATSG.
**4.** The cantonal court relied on the expert opinion of September 8, 2023, which determined a 70% capacity for work in the previous occupation since the end of 2019 and found no limitations in household tasks. The legally required average incapacity for work of at least 40% over one year according to Art. 28 IVG was therefore not met. The response from the insurance judges was legally correct.
**5.** The evaluation of evidence by the lower court, especially regarding the expert opinion, was not obviously incorrect or legally flawed. Anticipatory evaluation of evidence and the waiver of further investigations were justified.
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaint was dismissed and the court costs were imposed.
5A_206/2025: Non-admission of the complaint against the non-admission decision of the bankruptcy opening
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ AG in liquidation was declared bankrupt by the District Court of Uri on November 20, 2024. Its cantonal complaint against this decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of Uri on February 13, 2025, due to the failure to pay the court cost advance with a non-admission decision. The company filed a complaint with the Federal Court on March 11, 2025, which did not admit the complaint due to late submission and lack of reasoning according to Article 108 BGG.
Summary of the Considerations
1. (E. 1) Determination of the procedural course: The complainant did not pay the cost advance in the cantonal procedure, which is why the Court of Appeal did not admit the complaint. The deadline for submitting the complaint to the Federal Court was exceeded. 2. (E. 2) Service fiction: The contested decision was treated as served on February 21, 2025, thus the deadline for the complaint expired on March 24, 2025. The submission on March 25, 2025, was late. 3. (E. 3) Substantive examination of the complaint: The concerns of the complainant are insufficiently substantiated. The unpaid cost advance and the alleged regional jurisdiction issue had no sufficient legal basis. Formal accusations against the signatures and other parties were not convincingly substantiated. 4. (E. 4) Obvious inadmissibility: The complaint is obviously inadmissible and proves to be ripe for dismissal due to lack of substantial reasoning according to Art. 108 BGG. 5. (E. 5) Cost regulation: The court costs are imposed on the complainant.
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaint is not admitted, and the court costs are imposed on the complainant.
9C_245/2024: Question of the obligation to perform in prostate cancer treatment using HIFU
Summary of the Facts
The insured A.________ requested coverage of costs from his mandatory health insurance for treatment of his prostate cancer using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), which was performed in 2021. The then Arcosana AG (later CSS Kranken-Versicherung AG) denied coverage based on specifications in Appendix 1 of the Health Care Benefit Ordinance (KLV), stating that it was a non-mandatory service. The insurance court of the Canton of St. Gallen referred the matter back to the insurance company to handle it as a mandatory service. Against this decision, CSS health insurance and the Federal Office of Public Health filed complaints with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_64/2024: Claim for Disability Pension
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, A.________, suffered an accident and registered with the IV Office of Obwalden for disability insurance due to the resulting complaints (elbow and shoulder problems). After granting early intervention and integration measures, the IV Office rejected the claim for a disability pension, as it determined a disability degree of only 27%. This decision, as well as a subsequent judgment from the Administrative Court of the Canton of Obwalden, were challenged by the complainant before the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_244/2025: Inadmissibility of Educational Contributions
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ applied for educational contributions for two academic years (2022/2023 and 2023/2024). The requests were rejected by the Office for Youth and Career Counseling as well as the cantonal authorities, as A.________ had already dropped out of two training programs. A.________ brought the matter to the Federal Court, arguing that § 17f para. 2 of the Education Act of the Canton of Zurich was not applicable in his case.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_372/2024: Judgment on Disability Pension in Accident Insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________ suffered injuries to his right elbow in a workplace accident in 2019. Suva initially provided medical treatments and daily allowances. Later, it granted A.________ a disability pension at a disability degree of 18% and an integrity compensation of 10%. A.________ filed a complaint with the Administrative Court of the Canton of Obwalden and requested a disability pension of 66%. However, the Administrative Court confirmed Suva's assessment. A.________ then appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_886/2024: Maintenance Arrangement: Modification of Spousal Support Measures in Divorce Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
A.________, the complainant, seeks to modify the maintenance payments established in the marriage protection proceedings for his children and wife in ongoing divorce proceedings, based on an alleged change in his income situation and a hypothetical income of the respondent (B.________). The Federal Court reviews the modification considering Art. 276 ZPO and Art. 98 BGG, while also taking into account the prior partial agreement of the parties, especially its conciliatory nature.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_334/2025: Dispute over Granting of Free Legal Aid in a Modification Procedure
Summary of the Facts
A.________ (complainant) requested free legal aid for a procedure to modify a divorce judgment pending at the District Court of Zurzach. The request was denied due to lack of proof of financial need. The complaints filed against this decision to the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Aargau and ultimately to the Federal Court were unsuccessful.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_587/2024: Residence Permit and Expulsion
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, a Serbian national, entered Switzerland in 2022 for family reunification and received a residence permit. After separating from his wife in 2023, the Office for Migration and Integration of the Canton of Aargau revoked his residence permit and ordered his expulsion. Complaints against this decision were unsuccessful at both the cantonal and federal court levels.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_239/2025: Inadmissibility of a Complaint in Asylum Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
Four Ukrainian nationals (born 1986, 1987, 2011, 2017) applied for temporary protection in Switzerland in May 2024. The State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) rejected the application in November 2024 and ordered expulsion to Poland or another willing host country. The complaint against this decision was dismissed by the Federal Administrative Court in April 2025. The affected individuals then filed a complaint against the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court with the Federal Court, which was handled in German.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_283/2025: Judgment Regarding Realization in Enforcement Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The complainant filed a complaint against decisions of the District Court of Arbon and the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Thurgau regarding the realization of a property in the context of enforcement proceedings. In particular, the request for free legal aid was denied, and procedural costs were imposed. The complainant argues that the lower courts violated her right to be heard and inadequately addressed her central points of complaint.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_621/2024: Judgment Regarding the Extension of the Residence Permit of a Congolese National
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, received a residence permit due to family reunification after marrying a Congolese national residing in Switzerland. After the divorce and due to his financial difficulties and conviction for domestic violence and ongoing criminal proceedings, he applied for an extension of his residence permit, which was denied by the cantonal authorities. The Federal Court had to examine whether the conditions for extension under Art. 50 para. 1 lit. a aLEI were met.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_178/2025: Judgment Regarding the Restitutio in Integrum of a Set Date and the Granting of Residence Permits under EU/EFTA
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court is dealing with a complaint from two Italian nationals (A.________ and B.________) against the non-granting of restitutio in integrum of a deadline and the rejection of the extension or revocation of their residence permits by the cantonal authorities of the Canton of Ticino. The background is a dispute over the timely submission of a document and whether there was an unavoidable obstacle justifying a restoration of the deadline.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7F_14/2025: Request for Revision Regarding the Judgment of the Federal Court
Summary of the Facts
The applicant A.________ submitted a request for revision titled "Opposition" against the judgment 7B_609/2024 of the Federal Court dated July 31, 2024, which had not admitted his complaint regarding a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Bern on the seizure.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_646/2024: Disability Insurance: Dispute over Revision of Disability Pension and Incapacity for Work
Summary of the Facts
A.________ suffered a crush injury after a workplace accident in 2001 and, according to medical findings, suffers from psychological impairments that rendered him incapable of work and led to the granting of a pension. After monitoring, medical assessments, and a pension review, the IV Office decided to revoke the pension at the end of 2015, as the disability degree was newly assessed at only 26%. The insurance court overturned this decision and recognized a complete incapacity for work of the complainant, based on a new court expert opinion. The IV Office then appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_355/2025: Inadmissibility of a Delay of Justice Complaint in the Context of Guardianship
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was under a guardianship established by the KESB Arbon. He and his brother repeatedly requested the termination of the guardianship, which was each time denied. A complaint about delay of justice from the brother was not addressed by the Court of Appeal, as the KESB had meanwhile made a decision in the matter. The complainant finally submitted a personal request to the Federal Court asking for the termination of the guardianship and the waiver of court costs.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_423/2024: Decision Regarding the Use of Public Land
Summary of the Facts
The municipality of La Chaux-de-Fonds granted B.________ SA a temporary permit to use public land for their hockey games, with the possibility of setting conditions for the admission of mobile vendors in a security zone. A.________ Sàrl, which felt economically disadvantaged by these conditions, contested the permits and decisions before cantonal and federal authorities.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_238/2025: Non-admission of a Complaint Regarding Suspension of Entitlement to Unemployment Benefits
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ requests a review of a decision by the insurance court of the Canton of Aargau. This had confirmed a suspension of entitlement to unemployment benefits for 38 days, as ordered by the cantonal unemployment insurance. The complainant criticized the amount of the offered salary for an assigned job, without adequately substantiating this or presenting legal arguments.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_195/2025: Securing Order Regarding State and Municipal Taxes of the Canton of Thurgau
Summary of the Facts
The taxpayer A.________, now residing in U.________ (Germany), earned self-employed and employed income in the Canton of Thurgau between 2003 and 2008, which led to estimated tax assessments as he did not submit tax returns. These tax claims were documented in loss certificates. In 2024, the tax administration issued a securing order for a reduced amount after partial expiration. The taxpayer denied the final tax liability and requested the revocation of the securing order, which the tax appeal commission of the Canton of Thurgau partially rejected.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_235/2025: Judgment on the Sealing by the Bankruptcy Office
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court deals with a complaint from A.________ AG in liquidation against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Uri, which had confirmed the sealing of a property by the bankruptcy office. The sealing was ordered based on the presumption that objects in the custody of the bankrupt might be located in the property in question and thus in the bankruptcy estate.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_245/2025: Judgment on the Revocation of the Residence Permit EU/EFTA in Switzerland
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________, a national of North Macedonia, had lived predominantly in Switzerland with an EU/EFTA residence permit since 2013, based on two failed marriages with EU nationals. After the revocation of her residence permit and several legal proceedings, her entire stay of over eleven years was legally evaluated. The contentious issue was a claim for extension of the residence permit, among other things based on social and professional integration and hardship reasons.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_545/2024: Decision of the Federal Court on Non-admission of a Complaint in a Social Assistance Procedure
Summary of the Facts
A.________ lodged a complaint against a judgment of the Cantonal Court of Fribourg dated July 25, 2024. The Federal Court rejected a request for free legal aid due to lack of prospects and repeatedly urged the complainant to pay the cost advance. The complainant did not comply with this request even after the deadline had passed.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_227/2024: Revocation of a Settlement Permit and Downgrading to a Residence Permit: Clarification of the Burden of Proof and Blameworthiness of Debt
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court had to decide on the legality of the downgrading of the settlement permit of a North Macedonian national living in Switzerland since 1989. The reason for the final decision was the financial over-indebtedness of the complainant and his repeated criminal convictions. The lower court denied the requirements for a downgrade, as the composition of the complainant's debts was unclear due to multiple changes of residence and there was no evidence of reckless debt management. The Federal Court overturned this judgment and referred the matter back to the lower court for further clarification and reassessment.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.