Latest Judgments of the Federal Court
Here you will find the most recent 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 Lexplorer portal. There, you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest judgments tailored to your areas of law.
6B_550/2025: Judgment on Deportation and Free Legal Aid
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted by the High Court of the Canton of Zurich of assault and acquitted of the charge of qualified simple bodily harm. He received a prison sentence of 18 months, with 196 days already credited for pre-trial detention and early execution of the sentence. In addition, a five-year deportation was ordered and entered into the Schengen Information System (SIS). A.________ appealed to the Federal Court against the deportation and requested free legal aid.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1**: The requirements for the reasoning of an appeal are regulated in Art. 42 para. 2 BGG. The appellant must demonstrate in what way a legal violation of the contested decision exists. In cases of fundamental rights complaints, a qualified obligation to state the grounds applies (Art. 106 para. 2 BGG). Insufficiently reasoned appeals will not be considered. - **E.2**: The appellant only mentions aspects of his private interest in staying in Switzerland, without addressing the detailed balancing of interests by the High Court. Thus, he does not meet the legal requirements for reasoning. - **E.3**: The appeal is not admitted due to lack of suitable reasoning.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal as well as the request for free legal aid were dismissed, and the court costs were imposed on the appellant.
5A_383/2025: Judgment on the Challenge of a Decision Regarding a Power of Attorney
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, who suffers from dementia, had established powers of attorney. The KESB Ausserschwyz validated the latest power of attorney dated February 1, 2024, in favor of his daughter but refused to validate an earlier power of attorney dated September 17, 2019, in favor of his partner. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Schwyz criticized the KESB's decision and referred the matter back for further examination. The appellant subsequently appealed to the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
E.1: The contested decision is an interim decision (Art. 93 para. 1 BGG). The appeal must demonstrate the conditions for challenging an interim decision. The Federal Court confirms that the conditions are not met. E.2: The appellant's arguments, particularly regarding possible disadvantages due to further investigations, are not sufficient to demonstrate irreparable disadvantages. A legal remedy remains open against future decisions. E.3: The Federal Court considers the reasoning of the Administrative Court to be lawfully and neutrally formulated and rejects the argument of a violation of the right to be heard. It also confirms the partner's interest in the cantonal appeal despite the legally valid appointment of the daughter as the power of attorney.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal is dismissed, the court costs are imposed on the appellant, and he must compensate the opposing party.
7B_169/2025: Decision Not to Proceed and Non-Admission of an Appeal
Summary of the Facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zug decided on February 3, 2025, not to proceed with a criminal complaint filed by A.________ against a doctor for abuse of office. The appeal filed by A.________ against this decision was dismissed by the High Court of the Canton of Zug on February 14, 2025, due to insufficient reasoning for non-admission. A.________ then appealed to the Federal Court against this decision.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The submission of the appellant does not meet the requirements of Art. 42 para. 1 and 2 BGG. There is a lack of a clearly formulated legal request as well as a suitable justification for the appeal legitimacy and the alleged legal violation by the previous instance. - **E.2:** According to the established case law of the Federal Court (see BGE 147 IV 73 E. 4.1.2), the appeal is not admitted due to insufficient reasoning. - **E.3:** The request for free legal aid is dismissed due to the hopelessness of the appeal, and the appellant is charged with costs. The court costs are set at CHF 500, taking into account the financial situation of the appellant.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal was not admitted, and the court costs were imposed on the appellant.
9C_102/2024: Requirements for Legal Proof of Spousal Consent for the Payment of Pension Funds in Capital Form
Summary of the Facts
A.________ wanted to withdraw his pension funds from the occupational pension scheme of the Vitems Foundation in capital form, which according to Art. 37a LPP requires the written consent of his spouse. He submitted the request but did not provide a notarized signature from his estranged wife. Vitems rejected the payment without legally validated proof of spousal consent. A.________ subsequently unsuccessfully sued before the cantonal court, which rejected his request on the grounds that the signature was not deemed sufficiently authenticated.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_262/2025: Judgment on the Interim Decision Regarding Building Permit and Ancillary Provisions in the Canton of Aargau
Summary of the Facts
The J.________ AG (later I.________ AG) submitted a building application for the demolition of a building and the construction of a multi-family house. After a building permit was granted by the municipal council of Muri (2023), several individuals filed an administrative complaint. The Department of Construction, Transport, and Environment complemented the building permit with additional conditions in partial approval of the complaint. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Aargau dismissed the administrative complaint of the complainants. They subsequently filed an appeal in public law matters to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_464/2025: Restoration of the Deadline for Legal Objection – Non-Admission of an Appeal
Summary of the Facts
The appellant received a payment order in a debt collection case on March 27, 2025. She only raised an objection on April 14, 2025, which was rejected as late. A request for restoration was denied by the District Court on May 9, 2025, and confirmed by the High Court of the Canton of Zurich on June 3, 2025. The appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Court on June 14, 2025, with the reasoning focusing on mental stress and an oral filing of the objection.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_548/2025: Appeal Against Conviction for Multiple, Partially Attempted Theft and Withdrawal of Conditional Execution
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted by the High Court of the Canton of Aargau for multiple, partially attempted theft and sentenced to an unconditional fine, and the conditional execution of a previously imposed prison sentence was revoked. A.________ appealed to the Federal Court and requested the annulment of the judgment and acquittal. He requested free legal aid for the procedure. The Federal Court examined the formal requirements for the appeal's reasoning according to Art. 42 para. 2 and Art. 106 para. 2 BGG.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_503/2025: Decision on Non-Admission of a Criminal Appeal
Summary of the Facts
The Court of Appeal of the Canton of Basel-Stadt partially upheld the appellant's appeal regarding multiple assaults, simple bodily harm (minor case), misappropriation, partially attempted threats, and property damage. It imposed a prison sentence of seven months and a fine of ten daily rates of CHF 20, as well as a fine of CHF 800, all suspended. The accused then filed an appeal with the Federal Court and raised various legal violations. The Federal Court did not admit the appeal.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_471/2025: Decision on the Execution of a Garnishment in Debt Collection Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
In a debt collection case against appellant 1, the Debt Collection Office of the District of Arbon executed the garnishment. Appellant 1 then appealed to the District Court of Arbon, which dismissed the appeal. The case subsequently went to the High Court of the Canton of Thurgau, which did not admit the appeal of the appellants. The appellants then filed an appeal with the Federal Court, addressing the proceedings regarding a criminal complaint from 2009 for forgery.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_312/2025: Non-Admission of a Criminal Appeal Due to Late Submission
Summary of the Facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office of Frauenfeld ordered the non-proceeding of a criminal procedure. The appellant appealed to the High Court of the Canton of Thurgau, which did not admit the appeal. The appeal filed with the Federal Court was submitted late. The appellant claims that the late delivery was due to the Polish postal service, which he could not sufficiently prove.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_347/2025: Inadmissibility of a Delay Complaint in the Area of Asylum Law
Summary of the Facts
The Iranian national A.________ applied for asylum in Switzerland on July 27, 2020, which was rejected by the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) on March 28, 2022. Against this decision, A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Administrative Court on April 28, 2022. The procedure is currently still pending. On June 23, 2025, she filed a delay complaint with the Federal Court and requested that the Federal Administrative Court be instructed to expedite her procedure. She also requested free legal aid and representation.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6F_13/2025: Judgment on the Review Request in a Criminal Case
Summary of the Facts
The applicant was sentenced by the High Court of the Canton of Bern for property damage to a conditional fine and a fine, as well as to pay damages. An appeal against this to the Federal Court was dismissed (Judgment 6B_748/2024). With the current review request, he sought a preliminary clarification of the court's jurisdiction and a revision, as new facts and evidence (including false witness statements) were presented that should lead to a change of the previous judgment.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_636/2024: Admissibility of Complaints in Public Law Matters and Subsidiary Constitutional Complaints
Summary of the Facts
A.________ did not pass the higher professional examination for auditors in the summer of 2021 and contested the evaluation of his exam. After his complaints were dismissed by the State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SBFI) and the Federal Administrative Court, he filed a complaint in public law matters as well as subsidiary constitutional complaint with the Federal Court. He criticized the lack of reasoning for the exam assessment, the violation of his right to be heard, and the denial of complete access to the files.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_400/2025: Decision on the Inadmissibility of an Appeal Regarding Conditional Release from Inpatient Measure
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court assesses an appeal from A.________, who protests against the decision of the High Court of the Canton of Bern regarding the rejection of his conditional release from inpatient therapeutic measures according to Art. 59 StGB. The appeal to the Federal Court is not admitted due to insufficient reasoning.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_283/2024: Decision on Disability Pension
Summary of the Facts
The insured A.________ applied for a disability pension due to burnout syndrome after being unable to continue her work as a medical secretary. The cantonal office for disability insurance granted her a half pension from August 2017. The cantonal judiciary changed this decision and approved a full pension. The disability insurance filed an appeal against this decision with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_213/2025: Review of Criminal Orders, Necessary Defense, and Procedural Unity
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court examined appeals related to the late objection against three criminal orders and the question of necessary defense as well as the unification of several criminal proceedings. The appellant argued that the criminal orders were not properly communicated to him and that due to his personal circumstances and the cumulative sentence of more than a year, he was entitled to necessary defense.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_235/2025: Judgment on the Rejection of a Disability Pension by the Disability Insurance Office of the Canton of Aargau
Summary of the Facts
A.________ registered for benefits with the Federal Disability Insurance (IV) in April 2021. After extensive medical and employment-related assessments, including a multidisciplinary report from SMAB AG, the Disability Insurance Office of the Canton of Aargau rejected his claim for a disability pension with a decision dated April 11, 2024. The appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Insurance Court of the Canton of Aargau. Before the Federal Court, A.________ requested the granting of a full disability pension or a new comprehensive examination.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_426/2025: Judgment on the Non-Admission of a Criminal Complaint
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Lucerne, which dismissed the complaint against the non-admission order of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Lucerne.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2D_24/2023: Judgment on a Tender in the Canton of Graubünden
Summary of the Facts
The municipality of Churwalden issued a tender for the construction work on the goods road U.________ in an open procedure. The A.________ AG and B.________ (consisting of C.________ AG and D.________ AG) submitted offers. The municipality awarded the contract to B.________. A.________ AG appealed against this and argued that D.________ AG, as a member of the bidding consortium, did not meet the required eligibility criterion of compliance with the national framework agreement. The Federal Court examined the interpretation of the eligibility criteria and whether the previous decision was arbitrary.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_170/2025: Non-Admission of a Criminal Complaint and Non-Admission of the Appeal before the Federal Court
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed a criminal complaint against a prosecutor on February 3, 2025, with the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zug for abuse of office. The Public Prosecutor's Office decided not to proceed with the criminal complaint. The appellant subsequently filed an appeal with the High Court of the Canton of Zug. This court did not admit the appeal due to insufficient reasoning on February 14, 2025. A.________ appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_375/2024: Judgment on Family Allowances and Refund Claim
Summary of the Facts
The respondent A.________ had been receiving family allowances for non-working individuals since March 2012. The family compensation fund of the Canton of Zurich demanded the repayment of these benefits for the period from October 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019. After a series of decisions and appeals, the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich assessed the repayment as partially forfeited. The cantonal judgment partially lifted the repayment demand and instructed the family compensation fund to additionally decide on the entitlement to allowances from January 2022. The family compensation fund appealed this decision to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_1366/2023: Conviction for Misuse of Identity Cards and Plates
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ was convicted in the second instance for the misuse of identity cards and plates according to Art. 97 para. 1 lit. b SVG and sentenced to a conditional fine of 12 daily rates (each CHF 1,040) with a probation period of three years, as well as a fine of CHF 3,120. The question at issue is whether the official request for the surrender of vehicle documents and control plates was validly communicated. The order was initially not delivered by post but was later published publicly in the official gazette.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_172/2025: Judgment on Insurance Obligation According to KVG
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________, a German citizen with a residence permit in Switzerland, had been exempted from the Swiss health insurance obligation since his entry in 2004 by decisions of various cantonal authorities. After receiving social assistance and the resulting obligation to take out mandatory health insurance in Switzerland, he later approached the competent authorities to be exempted from the insurance obligation again. The previous instance decided that a prior waiver of the insurance obligation cannot be revoked.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
2C_279/2025: Judgment Regarding State Liability and Procedural Costs
Summary of the Facts
A.________ applied to the Civil Court of Basel-Stadt for damages and compensation due to alleged damage caused by an eviction order. After a conciliation hearing, she was imposed a conciliation fee of CHF 1,000. The settlement was revoked, following which an appeal against the conciliation fee was filed. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. A.________ and her husband then filed an appeal with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5D_31/2025: Decision on Non-Admission of a Subsidiary Constitutional Complaint
Summary of the Facts
The appellant was a property owner of two plots that were auctioned in autumn 2024. The B.________ AG, the successful bidder, demanded eviction, which was approved by the District Court of Rheintal. The appellant filed a complaint with the Cantonal Court of St. Gallen, which did not process it due to insufficient reasoning. She subsequently filed a subsidiary constitutional complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.