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 dispositives. For the further 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 you will receive the latest rulings tailored to your areas of law.
1C_676/2024: Inadmissibility of an appeal against an interim order of the TAF
Summary of the Facts
A.________ applied for facilitated naturalization, which was denied by the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) due to a lack of compliance with public safety and order requirements. The Federal Administrative Court (TAF) confirmed the decision with new reasoning, particularly regarding the stability of the marriage. The Federal Court remanded the case for re-examination to the TAF. In the meantime, a criminal proceeding against A.________ was initiated, and the TAF decided through an interim order to include this proceeding in the review. A.________ filed a complaint against this interim order.
Summary of the Considerations
(1.1) The Federal Court notes that the complaint is generally admissible as it concerns a public law matter (Art. 82 lit. a BGG). (1.2) The challenged order is an interim order. In order to appeal against it, it must either cause irreparable harm or allow for an immediate final decision (Art. 93 para. 1 BGG). These requirements are not met. (1.2) A.________ argues that the TAF exceeded its functional jurisdiction by further considering the criminal proceeding, even though it is merely a supervisory authority and the instruction is the responsibility of the SEM. However, the Federal Court clarifies that the appeal does not concern a question of jurisdictional distribution but rather the application of substantive law (Art. 4 para. 5 OLN). Therefore, the legal remedy appeal according to Art. 92 para. 1 BGG is not admissible. (2) Due to the inadmissibility of the appeal, it is dismissed, and the costs are imposed on the losing party.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal is declared inadmissible, and the court costs are imposed on the appellant.
4F_3/2025: Decision on the review of a ruling concerning employment contract
Summary of the Facts
A.________ requested the review of a Federal Court ruling from February 4, 2025, which concerned a prior employment contract dispute and ruled against him. According to A.________, the Federal Court overlooked decisive evidence and made a faulty assessment of the facts. The court examined the request for review as well as a request for legal aid (free legal assistance).
Summary of the Considerations
(1) The Federal Court examines its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the submitted requests ex officio. It was established that review is only permissible for specific reasons according to Art. 121–123 LTF. (2) A.________ argued that the Federal Court overlooked a significant piece of evidence and misjudged the facts. However, the court found that the arguments presented do not fall within the scope of the cited legal provisions and are insufficiently specified. Furthermore, the alleged evidence had already been properly examined. The original ruling was based on the insufficient reasoning of the appeal and cannot be corrected through a review procedure. (3) Since the review was hopeless, the request for free legal assistance was dismissed due to non-fulfillment of the statutory requirements of Art. 64 para. 1 LTF. The costs of the procedure were imposed on A.________, without granting procedural costs to the parties.
Summary of the Dispositive
The request for review and the application for free legal assistance were dismissed, and the court costs were imposed on the applicant.
1D_1/2024: Ruling regarding a disciplinary procedure in public service
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, has been working as a caregiver at B.________ since 2004 and has repeatedly held positions as a staff representative. In 2022, he met with a journalist from RTS without the consent of his employer, leading to a disciplinary procedure. His conduct was deemed a violation of loyalty obligations, and he received a formal written warning.
Summary of the Considerations
1. (Para. 1) The Federal Court examines the admissibility of the subsidiary constitutional complaint. The legal requirements are met, as it concerns a non-pecuniary public law employment relationship. 2. (Para. 2) The appellant alleges a violation of constitutional rights, particularly arbitrariness (Art. 9 BV). According to Art. 116 BGG, such allegations must be substantiated in detail. 3. (Para. 3) It is examined whether the lower court established the facts arbitrarily: - (3.2) The lower court did not decide arbitrarily that the appellant did not express himself as a union representative in his conversation with the journalist but rather as an employee of the employer. - (3.3) No evidence is required since the context of the conversation shows that the appellant provided information about internal processes. - (3.4) The conversation took place without prior information of the employer, so the lower court correctly found a violation of the obligation of transparency. 4. (Para. 4) The lower court provided sufficient reasons for its decision and did not violate the right to be heard. The arguments regarding freedom of expression and union freedom were lawfully not examined in detail, as they were based on a faulty premise. 5. (Para. 5) A violation of union freedom is denied, as the conversation did not take place in the context of union activities. There was no general restriction of such activities by the employer.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appellant bears the court costs, and the subsidiary constitutional complaint is dismissed.
6B_1005/2023: Ruling on an appeal concerning intentional serious violation of traffic rules
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted of intentional serious violation of traffic rules, as during an overtaking maneuver outside built-up areas, he exceeded the permissible maximum speed of 80 km/h by 30 km/h. The lower courts justified the conviction objectively with the speed violation and subjectively with at least eventual intent. The appellant objected before the Federal Court to the unreliability of the laser measurement, the legal assessment of the speed violation, and the absence of an excusable emergency.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_209/2025: Bankruptcy threat in the context of debt collection
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ challenged a bankruptcy threat from the Basel-Landschaft debt collection office in collection no. xxx, as he disputed the amount of the asserted claim. The supervisory authority for debt collection and bankruptcy Basel-Landschaft did not consider his complaint, as it contained neither clear legal requests nor justification against the enforceability. The appellant then filed a civil appeal to the Federal Court, demanding among other things the annulment of the decision and a request for suspensive effect.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_284/2024: Compensation for the free legal counsel in an appeal concerning child matters
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, a lawyer, requested a fee of CHF 27,352.85 for her work as free legal counsel for the mother of a child in an appeal regarding the child's matters. The Cantonal Court of St. Gallen set the fee at CHF 11,861.20, which the appellant challenged with a subsidiary constitutional complaint before the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5D_14/2025: Ruling regarding non-admittance of a constitutional complaint in connection with a collocation action
Summary of the Facts
The appellant initially filed a lawsuit against the bankruptcy estate at the District Court of Hinwil, which was treated as a collocation action against a collocation plan from 2014. The District Court did not admit the action. Later, the appellant appealed to the Cantonal Court of Zurich, which was also dismissed. He then filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
9C_31/2025: Non-admittance of appeal concerning outstanding premium claims in health insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed an appeal against a ruling of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Graubünden, which obliged him to pay outstanding premium claims and costs to Sanitas Basic Insurance AG and granted the respondent the definitive legal opening. The Federal Court examined the appeal regarding formal and substantive requirements according to Art. 42 para. 1 and 2 BGG.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
6B_154/2025: Ruling concerning probation period for conditionally enforceable fine
Summary of the Facts
The appellant was sentenced by the Cantonal Court of Thurgau for multiple threats and multiple violations of the Weapons Act to a conditionally enforceable fine of 90 daily rates of CHF 30.– under a probation period of 4 years and fined CHF 500.–. The ammunition confiscated by the prosecution was seized. The appellant criticized the duration of the probation period before the Federal Court as arbitrary and disproportionate.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_98/2025: Ruling on the admissibility of an appeal concerning supplementary benefits
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, was entitled to a full disability pension starting from January 1, 2012. Supplementary benefits were granted retroactively, taking into account her assets, including savings, occupational pension capital, and funds from these. In later decisions, the supplementary benefits were also determined with consideration of these assets. The appellant requested a review and correction of these calculations, including a reassessment of the original decisions, which was rejected by the responsible office and repeatedly confirmed by the courts.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_677/2024: Decision on marriage protection measures
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and B.________, married since 2019 and separated since 2023, dispute the allocation of the marital apartment as well as the amount and duration of the maintenance payment. In the first instance, the marital property was awarded solely to A.________ for use, and the maintenance payments were set at CHF 1,858.-- per month. The Cantonal Court of Lucerne changed the decision and awarded the apartment to B.________; maintenance was increased to CHF 4,205.-- until July 2024 and to CHF 2,375.-- from August 2024. A.________ subsequently appealed to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
6B_168/2025: Non-admittance of an appeal against the non-admittance order of the Zurich Court
Summary of the Facts
The appellant was punished by the District Office of Winterthur via a penal order for disobedience against an official order. After appealing against the penal order, he did not appear for the scheduled hearing, which resulted in the fiction of withdrawal of the appeal according to Art. 355 para. 2 StPO. The District Office did not consider the appeal and declared the penal order to be legally valid. The Zurich Court confirmed this decision, and the appellant filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_356/2024: Decision concerning free legal assistance for opposition proceedings of a joint-stock company
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ AG applied for free legal assistance for two opposition proceedings before the District Court of Kriens to assert ownership of seized assets. After the requests were dismissed by the cantonal authorities, the appellant turned to the Federal Court, which also rejected the complaint.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
4D_24/2025: Decision regarding subsidiary constitutional complaint against a decision of the cantonal appeal authority for definitive legal opening
Summary of the Facts
A.________ opposed a payment order from the tax authority of the Canton of Vaud. The peace judge of the district of Aigle granted the canton the definitive legal opening for the contested amounts. The cantonal appeal authority declared the complaint filed by A.________ against this decision to be inadmissible. Subsequently, A.________ and B.________ filed a subsidiary constitutional complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2C_160/2025: Non-admittance of an appeal
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ GmbH filed a request with the Migration Office of the Canton of Solothurn to employ B.________, who is from Sri Lanka, as a cook. The request was denied due to unfulfilled admission requirements according to Articles 21–23 of the Foreigners and Integration Act (AIG). The Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn confirmed this rejection. The A.________ GmbH then filed an appeal with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_18/2025: Decision on the non-admittance question regarding facilitated naturalization
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court dealt with the appeal of A.________, who requested that the State Secretariat for Migration be instructed to process her applications for facilitated naturalization. The State Secretariat had previously decided not to consider the application. The lower court, the Federal Administrative Court, confirmed this decision.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_214/2025: Decision regarding free legal assistance, advance of court costs, and recusal
Summary of the Facts
The appellant is involved in a divorce proceeding before the District Court of Höfe. The District Court denied her free legal assistance due to lack of cooperation in disclosing her financial circumstances. Furthermore, the District Court did not consider the application for advance of court costs by the husband. The Cantonal Court of Schwyz dismissed the appellant's complaint and appeal against these decisions, as well as a similarly formulated request for recusal. The appellant then filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
6B_674/2023: Ruling regarding the invocation of Art. 177 StGB and assessment of evidence issues
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court deals with the conviction of A.________ for an offense of defamation against B.________. It examines whether the provisions of Art. 177 para. 2 and 3 StGB apply. Furthermore, the court addresses the complaint regarding factual error and the issue of evidence assessment.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_601/2023: Procedural closure regarding the withdrawal of an appeal against cost contributions for agricultural path renovation
Summary of the Facts
The owners A.B.________ and C.B.________, whose properties border the private path D.________, were required to bear the proportionate costs for the second stage of the path renovation. They filed a complaint with the Federal Court against the decision of the cantonal administrative jurisdiction of the Canton of Vaud dated October 6, 2023. After an agreement was reached between the parties, A.B.________ and C.B.________ withdrew their complaint.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5A_138/2025: Decision of the Federal Court on the inadmissibility of an appeal regarding cost consequences after bankruptcy opening
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ GmbH opposed the cost regulation of a cantonal court decision after the District Court initially opened bankruptcy and the Cantonal Court annulled this decision. The Federal Court assessed the submission of A.________ GmbH as insufficiently substantiated and did not admit the appeal.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
6B_354/2024: Ruling regarding attempted intentional homicide, brawl, sentencing, and arbitrariness
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court examines complaints against a cantonal ruling in which the appellant A.________ was convicted of attempted intentional homicide, brawl, and multiple violations of the Narcotics Act. The act occurred on October 8, 2022, when A.________, together with his accomplice C.________, severely injured the victim B.________ through repeated violent actions. The cantonal revision decided on the sentencing and lifted the expulsion order imposed by the first instance. The appellant denies the allegations and claims that he acted in self-defense and did not intend to cause the victim's death.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_207/2024: Ruling on disability insurance in connection with a new application
Summary of the Facts
The appellant repeatedly applied for disability insurance benefits, most recently on November 8, 2017, citing a relapse in her health condition. The IV Office rejected her application for professional measures and disability pension, as no relevant deterioration of the health condition could be determined. This rejection was confirmed by the cantonal administrative court. The appellant filed a complaint with the Federal Court against it.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_438/2024: Decision regarding the qualification of an event as an accident
Summary of the Facts
The insured A.________ reported an incident from September 13, 2022, to AXA Assurances SA on September 20, 2022. He claimed to have suffered back pain from catching a suddenly falling stone slab. AXA rejected the claim for insurance benefits, as the event could not be classified as either an accident or accident-like bodily injury. The cantonal instance classified the event as an accident and instructed AXA to take further steps to review and calculate the benefits.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
6B_44/2025: Inadmissibility of a request for revision
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ was convicted by the Criminal Chamber of the District Court of Lausanne in 2022 for serious bodily injuries, sexual acts with children, attempted rape, and other sexual offenses to a prison sentence of 12 years and was expelled from the country. The appeal and a first complaint filed with the Federal Court were dismissed. In 2024, A.________ requested a review of the ruling based on new witness statements, but the cantonal appeal instance declared this review inadmissible.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_177/2025: Inadmissibility of a criminal appeal concerning the refusal of conditional release
Summary of the Facts
A.A.________ filed a complaint against a decision of the cantonal penal execution chamber of the Canton of Vaud, which refused conditional release. This refusal was based on a negative prognosis for the future, particularly due to serious sexual offenses and the appellant's lack of insight. The Federal Court dismissed the appeal as it did not meet the statutory requirements.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
8C_94/2025: Decision on free legal representation in connection with unemployment insurance
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ requested free legal representation in the context of a complaint against a decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Thurgau. The cantonal court dismissed the request due to hopelessness and saw no changed circumstances that could justify a different assessment. The Federal Court did not permit the following complaint for lack of justification.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2C_493/2024: Hardship measures according to Special Ordinance 2 for the COVID-19 pandemic
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ AG applied in 2021 for hardship measures according to the cantonal special ordinance of the Canton of Aargau to mitigate the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which were denied. A subsequent complaint regarding the refusal of legal recourse and the associated legal remedies was unsuccessful. The Federal Court is now examining the subsidiary constitutional complaint submitted by the appellant against a ruling of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Aargau.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
4D_29/2025: Federal Court ruling regarding subsidiary constitutional appeal in connection with a provisional legal opening
Summary of the Facts
The debtor A.________ opposed a payment order of CHF 7,886 from B.________ SA. The president of the civil court of the district of Saane granted provisional legal opening on September 30, 2024. The II. Civil Appeal Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Fribourg declared the appeal by A.________ against this decision inadmissible on January 22, 2025. Against this decision, A.________ filed a subsidiary constitutional appeal with the Federal Court on February 17, 2025.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
4A_120/2025: Withdrawal of the appeal in a tenancy matter
Summary of the Facts
The appellants A.________ and B.________ filed a complaint in civil law against a decision of the administrative jurisdiction of the Canton of Vaud dated February 11, 2025. By letter dated March 18, 2025, the legal counsel of the appellants informed the Federal Court about the withdrawal of the complaint.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
5D_15/2025: Decision regarding a collocation action and constitutional complaint
Summary of the Facts
The appellant initially filed a collocation action against the bankruptcy estate of B.________, which the District Court of Hinwil did not admit. The subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Cantonal Court of Zurich. Against this ruling, the appellant filed a complaint with the Federal Court. In the procedure 5D_15/2025, the complaint was treated as a subsidiary constitutional complaint.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_66/2025: Decision regarding building permit and appeal legitimacy
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed an appeal on February 3, 2025, with the Federal Court against two rulings of the Administrative Court of Zurich. These concerned the dismissal of an appeal and a non-admittance decision of the Building Appeal Court in connection with a building permit and a color and material concept of a renovation project. Due to the termination of her lease, her legitimacy was deemed to have lapsed. The Federal Court consolidated the two proceedings and dismissed the appeals as the appeal reasoning did not meet the requirements.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
2C_110/2025: Appeal against electricity disconnection — Decision on interim orders and precautionary measures
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ opposes the disconnection of electricity supply in her apartment and requests among other things super-provisional measures for the restoration of the electricity supply. She also demands the annulment of several orders and protective measures, including free legal assistance. The dispute particularly concerns legal remedies against interim orders of the authorities.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
4A_329/2024: Procedure for the liquidation of a simple partnership and procedural questions regarding passive legitimacy
Summary of the Facts
Four siblings founded a simple partnership to jointly manage a gifted property. After disputes, one partner filed a lawsuit for the dissolution and subsequent liquidation of the partnership. A subsequent request for clarification led to further legal disputes, particularly regarding the issue of passive legitimacy of the parties in the appeal proceedings.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
7B_18/2025: Non-acceptance of a criminal complaint in connection with a custody dispute
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed a criminal complaint against employees of the KESB in connection with a custody dispute. The public prosecutor did not take up the criminal investigation, which was confirmed by the Cantonal Court of Zurich. The appellant directed a complaint in criminal matters to the Federal Court, requesting the annulment of the lower court's decision and demanding the conduct of a criminal investigation.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.
1C_247/2024: Dismissal of the proceedings due to withdrawal of the appeal
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court on April 25, 2024, against a ruling of the appeal commission of the Canton of Bern, which confirmed the precautionary withdrawal of his driver's license. However, the complaint was withdrawn on March 5, 2025, thus concluding the proceedings.
Complete summary of the ruling can be found in the Portal.