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 with facts, considerations, and dispositives. 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_367/2025: Inadmissibility of a Criminal Law Appeal
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed a criminal law appeal with the Federal Court against a ruling of the Criminal Appeal Chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court. This cantonal ruling of February 26, 2025, had rejected the appellant's appeal against a previous ruling of the La Côte Police Court from December 5, 2024, because the appeal declaration did not meet the requirements of Article 399 Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code (StPO).
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Court stated that the appellant had not made adequate and clear statements in his appeal to demonstrate how the cantonal ruling had violated the law. According to Article 42 Paragraphs 1 and 2 and Article 106 Paragraph 2 of the Federal Court Act (BGG), appeals must be sufficiently justified. The Federal Court also emphasized that the requirements regarding the justification of an appeal have been repeatedly highlighted, especially with regard to the appellant's previous procedural acts. The cantonal court had previously determined that the appellant neither specified which points of the first-instance ruling were being contested nor presented the desired changes or evidence requests. Therefore, the cantonal appellate authority decided, based on Article 403 Paragraph 1 Letter a StPO, that the appeal was inadmissible. The Federal Court concluded that the appeal was likely inadmissible for the same reasons as the appeal, particularly because it also lacked specific and coherent justification for the alleged legal violations. Therefore, the appeal could not be considered. The proceedings were ultimately terminated according to Article 108 Paragraph 1 Letter b BGG, as the legal requirements for the admissibility of the appeal were not met. The appellant shall bear the costs of the proceedings amounting to 500 Swiss francs, taking into account his unfavorable financial circumstances.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal was declared inadmissible, and the court costs were imposed on the appellant.
1C_681/2024: Decision on the Imposition of Procedural Costs in an Expropriation Law Procedure
Summary of the Facts
The case concerns a dispute over the effects of withdrawing a compensation request due to flight noise on the imposition of procedural costs. Flughafen Zürich AG (FZAG) appealed the decision of the Federal Valuation Commission (ESchK) and partially the ruling of the Federal Administrative Court to the Federal Court to ensure that A.________, who had withdrawn the compensation request, should bear the procedural costs.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Court examines the admissibility of the appeal ex officio. In this case, it is a preliminary decision of the Federal Administrative Court, as the final regulation of the procedural costs is still pending. Preliminary decisions can only be independently contested under the conditions of Article 93 Paragraph 1 BGG. There is no irreparable disadvantage, and it is not evident that a prompt decision would result in significant time or cost savings. The cost decision is closely related to the still open amount of costs, which makes a separate approach unreasonable. Due to the lack of the prerequisites of Article 93 Paragraph 1 BGG, the Federal Court does not enter into the appeal.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal is not admitted, the court costs are imposed on Flughafen Zürich AG, and no party compensation is awarded.
2C_309/2025: Appeal Against Non-Admission Decision in Asylum Procedure
Summary of the Facts
The Turkish national A.________, whose asylum application was rejected by the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM), filed an appeal to the Federal Administrative Court, which did not enter into the matter due to a missing qualified electronic signature. Against this non-admission decision, she appealed to the Federal Court, demanding reinstatement of the procedure, requesting free legal aid and suspensive effect.
Summary of the Considerations
(E.2.1) The Federal Court examines its jurisdiction considering Article 83 lit. d No. 1 BGG, which states that appeals in public law matters in asylum law are inadmissible unless it concerns an extradition request from the country of asylum, which is not the case here. (E.2.2) Non-admission decisions in the asylum field are also subject to this inadmissibility. The present legal case does not meet any exemption provisions, which is why the appeal in the main proceedings is inadmissible. (E.2.3) A subsidiary constitutional appeal is not possible, as the Federal Administrative Court is not a competent instance for this (Article 113 BGG e contrario). (E.3.1) The inadmissible appeal is dealt with in simplified proceedings (Article 108 BGG) by the president of the division as a sole judge, and it is not admitted. (E.3.2) The request for free legal aid and representation is rejected due to poor prospects of success. Court costs are not charged exceptionally, and no party compensation is owed.
Summary of the Dispositive
The court did not enter into the appeal and rejected the request for free legal aid without imposing court costs.
6B_123/2025: Matter of Violence and Threats Against Authorities and Officials
Summary of the Facts
A.________ is accused of having assaulted a police officer (B.________) by elbowing him in the back while intoxicated during the Lucerne Carnival in 2022. The public prosecutor initially convicted him, among other things, of violence and threats against authorities and officials, which initially led to a partial acquittal by the district court. However, the cantonal court found him guilty of attempted violence and threats against authorities and officials. A.________ filed an appeal to the Federal Court and demanded acquittal.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_190/2025: Jurisdiction of the Municipal Authority in Coordinated Building Permit Procedure
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, applied for a subsequent building permit for a nursery and a fence in the agricultural zone, which the municipal council of Weiningen refused. Additionally, it demanded the restoration of the lawful state. The municipality later requested a detailed operating concept to clarify the facts, which A.________ contested and legally challenged. The Administrative Court of Zurich dismissed the appeal and confirmed the jurisdiction of the municipal building officer to request additional documents.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_58/2025: Decision on Non-Payment of a Cost Advance in Unemployment Insurance Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
In the present case, the appellant A.________ filed an appeal against a ruling of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern concerning unemployment insurance. The Federal Court found that the appellant had neither paid the requested cost advance on time nor within an extended deadline. Therefore, the appeal was not examined.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_603/2024: Judgment on the Qualification of Cash Payments as Premium-Obligatory Wage Sum
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ AG, a construction company in the field of scaffolding assembly, is legally accident insured with Suva. Following suspicion of undeclared work, Suva conducted an operational audit for the years 2018 to 2022. It was found that cash payments totaling CHF 1,301,685 were made to two subcontractors who had not carried out independent entrepreneurial activities. Suva classified these payments as wages and demanded premium arrears of CHF 104,029.70. The Social Security Court of the Canton of Zurich confirmed this demand, after which A.________ AG filed an appeal with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_415/2025: Judgment on Non-Admittance of an Appeal in a Divorce Case
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court had to decide on an appeal concerning a divorce and its financial consequences. In the cantonal proceedings, the children were placed in the custody of the mother, and the father was obliged to pay maintenance (child and post-marital maintenance as well as arrears). The appellant demanded a reduction in maintenance payments and the referral of the proceedings.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_291/2025: Inadmissibility of a Criminal Appeal Proceeding
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted by the first-instance court in Geneva in 2022 for violation of an obligation to support and sentenced to six months in prison (conditionally). After several unsuccessful legal remedies, he requested a revision of a previous ruling in February 2025. The Geneva revision instance did not consider the request. A.________ then filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Court, which was inadequately and late supplemented.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_290/2025: Inadmissibility of the Federal Criminal Appeal Due to Insufficient Justification
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ was sentenced on March 23, 2018, by the Police Court of the Canton of Geneva to a fine of 90 daily rates of CHF 600, conditionally for three years, as well as a fine of CHF 10,000 for threats and violation of the obligation to support. After multiple judicial reviews and a final rejection of a revision result, the appellant again acted before the Federal Court and demanded the annulment of the original rulings as well as the admission of his revision requests. His current appeal was deemed formally inadmissible.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_683/2024: Assessment of an Appeal Against Cost Allocation in Expropriation Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
Flughafen Zürich AG (FZAG) requested a review of the procedural costs of an expropriation procedure before the Federal Valuation Commission Circle 10 (ESchK) after the compensation request had been withdrawn by the heirs of the originally complaining simple company. FZAG demanded that the procedural costs be imposed on the heirs. The Federal Administrative Court rejected the request and referred the question of the amount of costs for reassessment to the ESchK. FZAG then filed an appeal in public law to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_247/2025: Inadmissibility of the Appeal Due to Inadequate Justification
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court against a decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Jura from February 25, 2025. The Cantonal Court did not materially review a submission from the appellant in which he requested a revision of previous decisions from the years 2019, 2020, and 2022. The Federal Court had to deal with the issue of advance payment of court costs as well as the formal and substantive requirements for the appeal.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_427/2025: Non-Admission of an Appeal
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Court against a decision of the Basel-Stadt Court of Appeal, which had not entered into his original appeal due to late submission. The court of first instance had decided this with a main reasoning and an alternative reasoning. The Federal Court examined the appellant's submission regarding the justification requirements according to Article 42 Paragraph 2 BGG.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7F_16/2025: Judgment Regarding a Request for Revision
Summary of the Facts
The applicants A.________ and B.________ filed a request for revision against a ruling of the Federal Court from January 6, 2025, which did not enter into their appeal against a decision of the Cantonal Court of Fribourg regarding free legal aid. They cited new evidence according to Article 123 Paragraph 2 lit. a BGG.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_396/2024: Judgment Concerning Opposition to a Criminal Sanction Order
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ objected to the inadmissibility of two flawed oppositions he filed against a sanction order from the Geneva public prosecutor, which convicted him of various offenses (including fraud, forgery, and defamation). The first opposition was submitted by a non-representative third party and contained further formal errors, while the second opposition was submitted late.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_258/2025: Non-Admission of Appeal Concerning AHV Contribution Arrears
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed an appeal against the ruling of the Insurance Court of the Canton of Solothurn, which did not enter into his submission. The case concerned AHV contribution arrears for the year 2024.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4D_88/2025: Decision on Non-Admission of an Appeal Concerning Cost Advance
Summary of the Facts
The appellant claimed damages of CHF 22,000 from the respondent before the Regional Court of Bern-Mittelland. This ordered the payment of a court cost advance of CHF 1,800. The appellant appealed to the Cantonal Court of Bern, which did not enter into the appeal due to insufficient justification. The appellant subsequently filed an appeal with the Federal Court, which deemed it inadmissible and did not enter into it.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1F_13/2025: Decision on a Request for Revision Against a Ruling of the Federal Court
Summary of the Facts
The applicant, A.________, submitted a request for revision against the Federal Court ruling 1C_84/2025 of March 7, 2025. This ruling did not enter into his appeal against a non-admission decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen. The appeal concerned the rejections of his criminal complaints by the indictment chamber of the Canton of St. Gallen.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_285/2024: Decision Regarding Building Permit and Aesthetic Integration of a Construction Project
Summary of the Facts
The company B.________ SA planned two residential buildings with a total of five apartments, parking spaces, and outdoor places on its plot in Lausanne, which is located in an ISOS protection zone. After several changes to the construction project and approvals by the municipal authorities, the neighboring company A.________ SA repeatedly objected, particularly due to aesthetic and protective aspects of the construction projects. After unsuccessfully challenging the municipal decisions at the Vaud Cantonal Court, A.________ SA filed an appeal with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_223/2025: Judgment on State Liability Claim Against the Canton of Bern
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________, who filed a state liability claim against the Canton of Bern, asserted violations of official duties by various authorities, including the KESB and KESGer. The claim specifically concerned the decisions of Chief Judge B.________, who had rejected the appellant's request for free legal aid. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern dismissed the claim as far as it entered into it.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_245/2025: Judgment on the Subject of Accident Insurance (Process Prerequisite)
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed an appeal against a ruling of the Cantonal Court of Lucerne from April 1, 2025, which confirmed Suva's decision on the objection. Suva denied the obligation to pay beyond November 30, 2023, as no natural causal relationship had been established between the accident of May 17, 2021, and the complaints. An obligation to pay for psychological and organically non-objectifiable complaints was also excluded due to a lack of adequacy.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.