Latest Judgments of the Federal Court

Summary of the Facts

The complainant, A.________, received disability pensions in different gradations (full, half, quarter pension) between 2016 and 2018 due to back problems and after several surgeries. The IV office of the Canton of Zurich conducted a revision procedure, in which the complainant claimed a health deterioration due to psychological reasons. An expert report found no revision-relevant change, so the entitlement to a quarter pension was maintained. The complainant requested a higher pension from the Social Security Court of Zurich, which was rejected, as was her complaint to the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ was charged in a criminal proceeding by the Ministry of the Canton of Ticino for property offenses. He filed a request for the recusal of prosecutor Chiara Borelli, arguing that she had shown bias through statements made during an interrogation on November 20, 2024. The prosecutor was accused, among other things, of classifying the medical certificate submitted by the applicant as "worthless" and making disparaging remarks. The cantonal instance rejected the recusal requests, and A.________ subsequently filed a complaint with the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The case concerns a dispute between A.________ and B.________ over the custody of a minor child. The complainant A.________ cited procedural defects and alleged errors of the cantonal authorities.

Summary of the Facts

The applicant A.________ was fined by the Cantonal Court of Graubünden for a violation of the driver regulation. However, the deadline for filing a complaint with the Federal Court was missed. A.________ requested the restoration of the deadline, arguing that her lawyer had not implemented the mandate to submit the complaint, despite her instructions.

Summary of the Facts

A.________, former Managing Director of B.________ SA, was dismissed for economic reasons in March 2023 and subsequently applied for unemployment compensation. The unemployment fund SYNA denied the claim, as A.________ was classified as employer-like until September 2023 due to his position as a board member and secretary of the board of directors of the company. Additionally, the fund demanded a refund of CHF 15,955.30 for already paid compensations. The cantonal court rejected A.________'s complaint, after which he challenged the judgment in the Federal Court.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant A.________, born in 1959, suffers from various somatic and/or psychological complaints and has repeatedly applied for benefits from disability insurance. After a renewed inquiry in 2020, the IV office of the Canton of Fribourg granted him a quarter pension based on a medical report starting in January 2021. The cantonal decision reduced the start of the pension payment to March 2021 and maintained the quarter pension. A.________ requested a higher pension (three-quarters) from the Federal Court, which partly rejected the request and ultimately granted him a half pension from March 2021.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant, A.________, was involuntarily placed in the psychiatric clinic C.________ by medical order on May 20, 2025. She filed a complaint against the placement with the Cantonal Court of Uri on May 26, 2025. After the involuntary placement was revoked by the treating physician, the Cantonal Court declared the complaint moot and dismissed it. The complainant then approached the Federal Court on June 11, 2025.

Summary of the Facts

The District Court of Zurich issued a provisional measure decision on March 11, 2025, concerning personality rights protection in favor of the complainants. The complainant appealed against this decision, which was rejected by the Cantonal Court of Zurich due to unpaid cost advances. The complainant then approached the Federal Court, which also did not admit the complaint.

Summary of the Facts

A.________, accused of sexual offenses against a minor and other criminal offenses, was convicted by the Cantonal Court of Valais to a prison sentence. He filed an appeal with the Federal Court. The lower courts based their conviction primarily on the victim's statements, which were assessed as consistent, coherent, and supported by further evidence. A.________ denied the allegations and accused the cantonal courts of having ruled arbitrarily and having violated the principle of "in dubio pro reo".

Summary of the Facts

The complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Court against a decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern, which declared his revision request regarding supplementary benefits to AHV/IV inadmissible and did not admit it. The complainant objected to the evidential assessment made by the cantonal court in the first judgment and also requested free legal aid.

Summary of the Facts

The Federal Court deals with the issue of the distribution of procedural costs and the refusal of compensation according to Art. 429 para. 1 StPO. The complainant A.________ challenged decisions of cantonal authorities that imposed procedural costs on him and denied him compensation, even though the criminal proceedings against him were dropped due to statutory limitations. A.________ argued that the procedure violated the presumption of innocence and constituted an inadmissible "covert punishment".

Summary of the Facts

A.________ and B.________, married since 2016 and parents of a child (C.________), were in dispute over protective measures for the marital community. Due to repeated reports of domestic violence and the mother's alcohol-related problems, the court issued various measures. The mother has been consulting a doctor for addiction-related issues since autumn 2023 regarding her alcohol dependence. A social report from SEASP recommended joint custody for the child and required the mother to provide regular proof of her abstinence and undergo a psychiatric follow-up. The mother filed a complaint with the Federal Court against the obligation to submit a monthly confirmation of a psychiatric follow-up and to continue a corresponding follow-up.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ filed a complaint against a ruling of the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Basel-Stadt, which upheld the decision of the Swiss Accident Insurance Fund (Suva) regarding accident insurance. The complaint was submitted late and did not meet the substantive requirements according to the Federal Court Act (BGG).

Summary of the Facts

The complainant, originally from Turkey and in Switzerland since 1999, applied for a residence permit after several similar requests had been previously rejected. She holds the status of provisional admission (Permit F) and argued, invoking Art. 8 ECHR, regarding a serious personal hardship case. She presented her long-term presence and the difficulties of deportation, but was rejected due to lack of integration and multiple criminal offenses.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant A.________ filed a complaint on October 31, 2024, with the public prosecutor of the district of Nordvaud against his letter of October 21, 2024, and its dismissal order. The lower instance, the Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Vaud, declared the complaint inadmissible, as the complainant and his sister were not recognized as close relatives of the deceased within the meaning of Art. 116 para. 2 StPO nor had they asserted their own civil claims. The complainants relied on their position as nephew and niece of the deceased.

Summary of the Facts

A. On September 30, 2024, the public prosecutor of the Canton of Fribourg issued a decision not to initiate proceedings, which A.________ unsuccessfully appealed to the Criminal Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Fribourg on December 20, 2024. B. A.________ then filed a complaint in criminal matters with the Federal Court on February 12, 2025.

Summary of the Facts

The father of a child born in 2023 applied in September 2024 for the return of his son to Italy based on the Hague Convention of 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (CArap). The cantonal authority of the Canton of Ticino rejected the application, did not order any court costs or party compensation, but granted both parents free legal aid. The father appealed to the Federal Court to have the costs of his legal representation covered directly by the state.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant A.________ filed a complaint against a ruling of the Social Insurance Court of Basel-Stadt regarding accident insurance. The complaint was made after the statutory deadline for filing an appeal. Furthermore, there was a lack of sufficient justification as to why federal law was allegedly violated.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant A.________ suffered a knee injury in a work accident on March 13, 2020, following which Suva initially provided insurance benefits. After obtaining an expert opinion, Suva suspended the benefits as of September 13, 2020, since the insured's condition, according to the medical assessment (status quo sine), no longer included the consequences of the accident beyond this date. The Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich confirmed the suspension of benefits. The complainant appealed to the Federal Court, requesting an additional clarification regarding the partial causality of the consequences of the accident.

Summary of the Facts

On July 11, 2020, A.________ caused a dangerous approach to a vehicle belonging to B.________ due to a negligent lane change when merging onto the highway. This led B.________ to perform an evasive maneuver, during which she lost control of her vehicle and collided with both guardrails. She suffered an acceleration trauma to her cervical spine. A.________ was accused of causing the foreseeable and avoidable consequences of his driving behavior by ignoring his duty of care.

Summary of the Facts

A.________, a single mother of two minor children, was assessed for the tax period 2021. Alimony she received for her children was added to her taxable income. The tax administration reduced the taxable income regarding direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes after an appeal. A.________ requested, among other things, the revision of all assessments back to 2008. Her complaint against the appeal decision was rejected by the Administrative Court of the Canton of Schwyz.

Summary of the Facts

The procedure concerns the extension of a guardianship for the 1933-born A.________ by the KESB Liestal. The complainant is no longer able to manage his affairs independently due to progressive dementia and dependency on his son. There is abusive behavior by the son, leading to financial exploitation and conflicts in the domestic environment. Several complaints against the extension of the guardianship were filed by the father and son, which were rejected by the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft. The dispute ultimately concerned the extension of the guardianship to the area of health. The Cantonal Court did not address the complaint due to the father's procedural incapacity and the son's self-interest.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant conducted a procedure regarding the recusal of the first instance judge at the District Court. The request was rejected, as was the cantonal complaint filed against this. In parallel, she requested the annulment of the partial judgment on the divorce issue, which was also rejected.

Summary of the Facts

A Swiss citizen, under a therapeutic measure according to Art. 59 StGB since 2006, filed a complaint against a cantonal decision. The dispute was about the extension of his detention under a measure as a substitute for security law detention, which was ordered during the examination of his situation regarding the measures. The complainant claimed a violation of his rights according to Arts. 3, 5, and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and demanded his immediate release. The Federal Court dealt with the legality of the extension under the measure.

Summary of the Facts

The procedure concerns the approval of the final report and final accounts of a guardianship for C.________ by the KESB of the City of Zurich. The complainants, A.________ and E.________, contest the approval and assert claims for damages. The District Council of Zurich did not address their complaint, and the Cantonal Court of Zurich rejected the complaint. The complainants then filed another complaint with the Federal Court against this judgment.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ was originally convicted by the Federal Criminal Court for endangering by explosives and toxic gases, qualified theft, and qualified property damage (Art. 224 para. 1 StGB, Art. 139 para. 1 in conjunction with para. 3 of the aStGB, Art. 144 para. 1 in conjunction with para. 3 of the aStGB). After an acquittal by the appeals chamber of the Federal Criminal Court and the subsequent revision, A.________ was convicted. He requested the Federal Court to annul the judgment and acquit him, as well as to dismiss the civil claims. The Federal Court dealt with several complaints, including the violation of the principle "in dubio pro reo", the right to be heard, and questions regarding the constitution of the civil plaintiff.

Summary of the Facts

The procedure concerns the enforcement of a pledge, specifically the auction of a painted artwork to satisfy a claim by B.________ SA against C.________. After several years of legal disputes, C.________ passed away in December 2023. His son A.________ later filed a legal remedy against the auction of the artwork but, according to the cantonal authorities, did not make sufficient requests regarding the valuation of the pledge.

Summary of the Facts

The complainant suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and has been repeatedly involuntarily placed. By decision of April 23, 2025, the KESB Thal-Gäu/Dorneck-Thierstein extended a measure aimed at outpatient treatment for two years. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn dismissed the complaint filed against this. The complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Court on June 16, 2025.

Summary of the Facts

A.________ filed a legal remedy with the Federal Court against the decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Wallis, which had declared a previous legal remedy regarding a fine notice inadmissible. The fine notice had been served to him on November 25, 2024.

Summary of the Facts