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 dispositions. For the other rulings, you will find a summary of the facts. The complete summaries of all rulings are available on the Lexplorer portal. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest rulings tailored to your areas of law.
2C_29/2025: Representation by unregistered persons before cantonal courts in the Canton of Basel-Stadt
Summary of the Facts
The association A.________ has represented members before cantonal authorities for years, even though in the Canton of Basel-Stadt, according to § 4 of the Advocacy Act/BS, professional representation by unregistered lawyers is prohibited. After A.________ wanted to act as a representative in a proceeding before the Building Appeal Commission, it prohibited the representation. The Appellate Court of the Canton of Basel-Stadt confirmed the order. The complainants, including A.________, appealed to the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
(1) The Federal Court confirms the admissibility of the appeal according to Art. 93 para. 1 lit. a BGG due to a legal disadvantage for the complainants. The appeal will be processed. (2) The application of federal law and cantonal constitutional law is freely examined, while the interpretation of simple cantonal law is only reviewed for arbitrariness. New evidence from the complainants does not meet the requirements for proceedings before the Federal Court and is excluded. (3) The interpretation of § 4 of the Advocacy Act/BS concerns the lawyer monopoly, which restricts professional representation to licensed lawyers. The question of whether the Building Appeal Commission is a court in the sense of the law is not examined in depth. (4) There is no legal error in the cantonal determination of facts regarding the remuneration of the services of the association A.________. The finding that representation is offered for remuneration is not arbitrary. (5) The lawyer monopoly is compatible with Art. 29 para. 2 BV and Art. 36 BV. The restriction of party representation by § 4 of the Advocacy Act/BS is justified, as representation by registered lawyers protects the quality of legal advice and ensures the administration of justice. (6) The cantonal court does not interpret § 4 para. 2 of the Advocacy Act/BS arbitrarily, as it relies on the Federal Court's practice regarding the CPC. The extended interpretation is justifiable and warrants the subordination of professional activities of the association under the lawyer monopoly.
Summary of the Disposition
The appeal is dismissed and the court costs are imposed on the complainants.
6B_683/2024: Judgment on False Certification and Violation of the Principle of Indictment
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, A.________, received a forged Covid-19 vaccination certificate through an acquaintance on October 13, 2021, during the Covid-19 pandemic, which she used 3 to 4 times to circumvent pandemic-related access restrictions. She admitted to the act but did not want to get vaccinated. The Lausanne Police Court initially acquitted her. However, the Criminal Chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court convicted her on June 13, 2024, for false certification (Art. 251 no. 1 StGB) with a fine of 90 daily rates of 30 francs with a two-year suspended sentence and a fine of 600 francs, alternatively 20 days of imprisonment. A.________ appealed to the Federal Court, seeking her acquittal and reimbursement of procedural costs amounting to 2,200 francs.
Summary of the Considerations
- **1.** The complainant alleged a violation of the principle of indictment (Art. 9 StPO). The Federal Court found that the special advantage of the forged vaccination certificates was clearly identifiable from the circumstances, and the complainant was able to prepare her defense in full. There is no violation of the principle of indictment. (Sections 1.1-1.3)
- **2.** Regarding the conditioning on Art. 251 StGB (False Certification) instead of Art. 252 StGB (Forgery of Certificates), the Federal Court stated that the forged Covid-19 certificate constitutes a title with increased evidentiary force, and the complainant obtained an unlawful advantage by gaining access to certain facilities while circumventing the applicable regulations. The requirements for intent and special advantage are met. The application of Art. 251 StGB is justified. A preferential application of Art. 252 StGB was rejected. (Sections 2.1-2.2)
- **3.** The complaint was thus not upheld. (Section 3)
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint was dismissed, and the court costs were borne by the complainant.
2C_65/2025: Decision on the Renewal of a Permit for Increased Use of Public Land
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________, a taxi driver from the Canton of Geneva, wanted to apply for the renewal of his permit for increased use of public land. However, he did not submit his application within the legally prescribed deadline. The responsible cantonal authority and the cantonal judicial authority subsequently confirmed the termination of the permit. The complainant argued that his late submission was due to a temporary medical incapacity, which was substantiated by a medical certificate. The Federal Court had to examine whether the arguments presented could justify an extension of the deadline and whether the application of the formal legal provisions in this case was to be regarded as excessive or arbitrary.
Summary of the Considerations
1. (Facts and Legal Background): The Federal Court deals with a public law procedure that is not affected by the exceptions according to Art. 83 BGG and thus makes the appeal generally admissible. 2. (Legal Proceedings and Admissibility Check): The complainant was able to meet all formal requirements for submitting his appeal; it is therefore procedurally admissible. 3. (Evaluation of Evidence): The Federal Court notes that the cantonal authorities did not act arbitrarily when they rejected the proof of medical incapacity as insufficiently detailed and submitted late. The court emphasizes the legal requirement to substantiate such impediments promptly and substantively. 4. (No Violation of Deadlines): The court addresses the complainant's argument that the cantonal interpretation of the elapsed deadline (formalism) was excessive and unlawful. It ruled that the leeway for setting deadlines was justified, as no insurmountable obstacles could be proven on the part of the complainant. 5.-6. (Rejection of Further Allegations): Complaints regarding formal proceedings and evidence evaluation were also declared unfounded, as there was no serious violation of legal or procedural principles.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint is dismissed and the requested free legal assistance is denied; court costs are also imposed.
2C_203/2025: Deportation Detention
Summary of the Facts
The Algerian national A.________, expelled from the country for five years and legally dismissed, was placed in deportation detention by the Migration Office of Basel-Stadt until June 12, 2025, after conditional release from prison. The Appellate Court of Basel-Stadt confirmed the legality and appropriateness of the detention. A.________ then appealed to the Federal Court without meeting the requirements for justification.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
2C_76/2025: Downgrading of a Residence Permit to a Yearly Residence Permit
Summary of the Facts
The Serbian national A.________, who has had a residence permit in Switzerland since 2003 due to family reunification, had repeated criminal convictions and outstanding debts. He was granted a settlement permit in 2017. In 2024, the Canton of Vaud decided to downgrade this permit and replace it with a yearly residence permit with specified integration requirements. A.________ successfully appealed to the cantonal court and subsequently filed an appeal before the Federal Court.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
4D_69/2025: Revision of the Claim Procedure and Cost Advance
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ challenged a decision of the District Court, which dismissed a claim procedure due to a settlement as completed. In his request for revision, the District Court set a cost advance of CHF 15,000. A subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich. The complainant filed a complaint against this ruling and a request for an extension of the deadline with the Federal Court, which informed him that the appeal deadline could not be extended. The submitted complaint did not meet the legal requirements for justification.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
2C_566/2024: Decision on the Extension of a Permit for Increased Use of Public Land
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a taxi entrepreneur in Geneva, requested the reinstatement of the timely missed deadline for the extension of his permit for increased use of public land. He justified this with a non-delivered information letter regarding the deadline and thefts in the area of his mailboxes. The cantonal office refused the reinstatement. The lower courts rejected his appeal, after which he turned to the Federal Court.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
2C_615/2024: Judgment on Non-Renewal of a Residence Permit and Expulsion
Summary of the Facts
The Kosovo national A.________, who married a compatriot settled in Switzerland in 2019, entered Switzerland in 2021 under family reunification. After a short marriage and separation from her spouse, she applied in 2022 for the extension of her residence permit based on a post-marital hardship case (Art. 50 para. 1 lit. b AIG). The cantonal authorities and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Aargau denied her extension of the permit and ordered her expulsion from Switzerland.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
4A_109/2024: Abusive Termination
Summary of the Facts
B.________ worked for several decades at the employer C.________ AG (later A.________ AG) and was terminated during the COVID-19 pandemic for “operational reasons.” The cantonal authorities initially assessed the termination dispute differently. The Court of Appeals awarded the plaintiff a reduced compensation for abusive termination (four monthly salaries). The employer then appealed to the Federal Court and disputed, in particular, the interpretation of the economic situation and the amount of compensation.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
1C_80/2025: Decision regarding the Seizure of Personal Data in SYMIC and Procedural Aspects
Summary of the Facts
An Afghan national, A.________, applied for asylum in Switzerland and stated that he was a minor. The SEM established through a medical report that he was very likely older than 18 years. A.________ appealed against this to the TAF, particularly regarding the change of his date of birth in the central migration information system (SYMIC). The TAF rejected the appeal due to non-payment of the required cost advances and denied him partial free legal assistance.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
2C_88/2025: Decision on the Suspension of a Permit for the Sale of Tobacco Products
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a trader, was allowed to sell tobacco products based on a permit from April 16, 2021. After a sales test on February 13, 2023, it was found that an electronic cigarette was sold to two underage buyers without age verification. The responsible cantonal authority then suspended the sales permit for 30 days, which the cantonal court reduced to 20 days. The complainant contested this decision before the Federal Court.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.
2C_637/2024: Decision regarding the Challenge of Assignment to a Residence Community
Summary of the Facts
A man from Guinea (A.________) lives in Switzerland without a residence permit and has been convicted several times for drug and immigration law violations. An expulsion order was issued against him. Additionally, the police authority of the Canton of Geneva ordered a residence restriction to the municipality of Vernier. The man has repeatedly appealed against this measure, particularly due to alleged procedural defects. Ultimately, the affected individual turned to the Federal Court to achieve the annulment of the residence restriction.
You can find the complete summary of the ruling in the Portal.