Latest Judgments of the Federal Court
Here you will find the latest judgments of the Federal Court (BGer) from bger.ch. For the first three judgments, we provide detailed summaries including facts, considerations, and dispositives. 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.
7B_346/2025: Decision on the extension of pre-trial detention due to suspicion of drug crime
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a French citizen, was arrested in connection with a police search in the Canton of Vaud on August 15, 2023. A large quantity of narcotics was seized during the operation. He is accused of being involved in organized drug trafficking, particularly the illegal cultivation of cannabis, between 2022 and 2023. The coercive measures court ordered pre-trial detention until August 7, 2025, due to flight and collusion risks. A.________ unsuccessfully requested his release and ultimately sought the lifting of pre-trial detention before the Federal Court.
Summary of the Considerations
(1.) The right to legal protection of the appellant is given, as the detention directly affects his rights to freedom, and the Federal Court examines the admissibility of the complaint. The newly presented evidence is inadmissible as it does not meet the requirements of Art. 99 para. 1 BGG. (2.) The appellant claims a violation of his right to be heard, which is dismissed by the Federal Court as unfounded, as this concerns not a violation of the right to be heard but an assessment of evidence. (3.) The Federal Court assesses serious suspicions against the appellant. These are based on evidence such as surveillance recordings, mobile phone data, and narcotics found in his vehicle. These suspicions justify his continued pre-trial detention. (4.) The alternative measures proposed by A.________ to avoid pre-trial detention were rightly rejected by the cantonal instance. The Federal Court agrees with this assessment, as the risks of flight and collusion cannot be adequately mitigated by the proposed alternative measures. (5.) The Federal Court emphasizes that the duration of pre-trial detention does not exceed the likely penalty and rejects the corresponding objection. (6.) The appeal is fully dismissed. However, the provision of free legal aid for the appellant is granted.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal is dismissed, free legal aid is granted, and no court costs are incurred.
6B_714/2024: Decision on the application of Art. 11A LPG/GE regarding the punishability of passive begging
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, a woman born in 1990 from the Roma community residing in Romania, was repeatedly cited in Geneva between October 22 and December 2, 2022, for passive begging at the entrances of a shopping center as well as in their immediate vicinity, particularly next to the parking cashier. She was subsequently fined 390 CHF, with a substitute prison sentence of four days in case of non-payment. The Federal Court reviewed the legality and proportionality of the sanctions in light of her social situation and the legal regulations in Geneva.
Summary of the Considerations
1. (7.4) The Federal Court emphasized that the term "immediate vicinity" is not concretely defined in law and therefore requires a restrictive interpretation to meet the requirements of the principle of legality according to Art. 7 ECHR. 2. (7.5 - 7.7) The Geneva regulation and its application are problematic due to the unclear definition of "immediate vicinity." Notably, there is no precise spatial boundary defined for the restriction of begging, leaving the norm vague and ambiguous. 3. (8) The sanctioning of a social and existential act such as passive begging endangers human dignity according to Art. 7 BV and leads to a disproportionate restriction of the complainant's personal freedom under Art. 10 BV and Art. 8 ECHR. This is particularly true in light of her extremely precarious situation and the lack of implementation of a graduated sanctioning system. 4. (8.6) Neither information from police authorities nor the measures provided by law met the requirements of the principle of proportionality. In particular, the complainant was not sufficiently informed about the punishability of her actions, nor about the possibility of a substitute prison sentence in case of non-payment of the fine.
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaint was upheld, the conviction was overturned, and the matter was returned to the cantonal authority for a new decision.
6B_356/2025: Inadmissibility of a federal court remedy in a criminal case
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a remedy on March 17, 2025, against a decision of the Criminal Law Chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court dated February 7, 2025, which concerned an objection to a criminal order. The Federal Court found that the complaint from A.________ did not contain sufficient justification according to the requirements of Art. 42 para. 2 and Art. 106 para. 2 BGG and was therefore inadmissible. Additionally, there was no appealable decision regarding another procedure mentioned in the complaint.
Summary of the Considerations
1. The complainant filed a complaint against a decision of the Criminal Law Chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court and mentioned an additional, unfinished procedure (No. AMxx.xxxxxx/AMLN).
2. At the request of the Federal Court to submit the decision actually challenged, the complainant again submitted the decision of February 7, 2025.
3. The Federal Court clarified that the complainant had not submitted an appealable decision regarding another procedure.
4. Whether the complainant was capable of acting alone due to a measure concerning him from the guardianship was not further pursued, as the complaint was already inadmissible.
5. According to Art. 42 para. 1 and 2 as well as Art. 106 para. 2 BGG, a complaint must be sufficiently justified. The written submission of the complainant only freely and appealingly discussed the facts and was therefore inadmissible. In particular, the lower court's rejection according to Art. 385 StPO was not adequately criticized.
6. The Federal Court declared the complaint inadmissible due to lack of sufficient justification and exceptionally waived the imposition of court costs.
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaint was declared inadmissible and no court costs were charged.
7B_1230/2024: Inadmissibility of a remedy in a criminal case
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a complaint against a decision of the District Public Ministry of the Eastern Vaud district, which provided for the non-initiation of a criminal procedure. After the complaint was rejected by the Criminal Chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court, the complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Court on November 18, 2024.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4A_53/2025: Judgment regarding loan recovery and alleged debt forgiveness
Summary of the Facts
A.________ granted B.________ a loan of CHF 250,000 with a contract that stipulated fixed interest (CHF 85,000) and a default interest of 10%. The repayment was due on June 27, 2022, but did not occur. The plaintiff pursued the defendant and demanded CHF 335,000 plus default interest in court. The defendant argued that the repayment claim had been extinguished by a forgiveness agreement related to a property purchase. All lower courts rejected his request.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_364/2025: Judgment regarding non-admittance of complaint in criminal matters
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted by the Basel-Stadt Criminal Court for violating traffic rules with a fine of CHF 250, with a substitute prison sentence of 3 days for non-payment. He appealed to the Basel-Stadt Court of Appeals. This court ordered that A.________ and optionally the Public Prosecutor's Office be summoned for the hearing, but that a mandatory summons of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the summoning of a police officer as a witness would not take place. A.________ demands before the Federal Court the summoning of the police officer and the Public Prosecutor's Office, as well as an acquittal of all criminal charges.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_465/2023: Judgment on the admission of doctors in outpatient care in the Canton of Zug
Summary of the Facts
The government of the Canton of Zug issued a regulation on June 27, 2023, regarding the admission of doctors in outpatient care and its annex for determining the maximum numbers per specialty. A.________ AG, B.________ AG, and C.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court, requesting the annulment of this regulation as they claimed it violated various fundamental rights and principles of federal law.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_408/2025: Non-admission of a complaint
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ appealed to the Federal Court against a decision of the Basel-Landschaft Cantonal Court. The lower instance did not admit an appeal from the complainant as there was no timely appeal declaration. The Federal Court examines whether a suitable complaint justification exists.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_130/2025: Classification of the function and procedural questions in the public service of the Canton of Neuchâtel
Summary of the Facts
A.________, employed in the public service of the Canton of Neuchâtel since 2012, contested the classification of his job as communications officer at the Centre professionnel neuchâtelois (CPNE) starting in 2021. He requested a higher classification of his function, as he had taken on new tasks. The State Council and the Neuchâtel Cantonal Court rejected his complaints, particularly denying a public hearing and further evidence collection. A.________ then appealed to the Federal Court, requesting the annulment of the cantonal decision and the conduct of the requested hearings as well as a correction of his classification.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_872/2024: Decision on a child protection measure regarding the mother's visitation rights
Summary of the Facts
The mother A.B.________ requested changes to the arrangement of personal contact with her three children, who are placed in foster care. The Child and Adult Protection Authority of Frauenfeld (KESB) had withdrawn the parents' right to determine the child's residence in 2022 and established supervised visitation rights for the mother. These have been reviewed and adjusted several times, with unsupervised visits always being denied. The mother last contested the rejection of an expanded and unsupervised visitation right as well as the refusal of free legal aid by the lower court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1307/2024: Access to the procedural dossier and participation in the cantonal appeal in a criminal case
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ Ltd (in liquidation) demanded access to procedural documents and participation in the procedure within the framework of a cantonal criminal appeal, which were denied by the cantonal authority. The background is a complaint by a third party against the discontinuation of a criminal proceeding and the lifting of an asset seizure amounting to USD 24 million.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_267/2025: Non-admission of a complaint due to insufficient justification
Summary of the Facts
A.________, the sole member of B.________ SA, filed an objection against a penal order from the City Court of Zurich regarding a fine of CHF 40 for exceeding the allowed parking time. After repeatedly failing to attend the main hearing without excuse, the District Court of Zurich declared the proceedings as completed. The subsequent path of legal remedy to the Federal Court was unsuccessful.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
4F_13/2025: Decision on a revision request
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court decided on a revision request from the applicant A.________ against the judgment 4A_124/2025 dated March 31, 2025, which did not consider a complaint. The applicant claimed a violation of provisions from federal laws, the Federal Constitution, and the ECHR. The revision request was deemed legally invalid and dismissed. The application for free legal aid was also rejected, and court costs were imposed on the applicant.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_67/2025: Challenge of a conviction for a simple traffic rule violation
Summary of the Facts
The complainant was fined by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Schaffhausen for losing control of her vehicle during a braking maneuver that led to a fall. Her objections, appeals, and complaints in criminal matters were dismissed. Before the Federal Court, she requested an acquittal as well as a return of the matter, relying on alleged defects in the road surface and claiming a violation of her fundamental rights.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_800/2024: Decision on granting the right to personal contact according to Art. 274a ZGB
Summary of the Facts
This is a family law dispute. After the death of the mother of two children and the imprisonment of the father due to an investigation, the issue was the granting of a visitation or contact right for the maternal grandmother and the associated obligations of the father. The KESB established a personal contact right in favor of the maternal grandmother, while the children are placed with the paternal grandmother. This right included both physical visits and video calls. The father opposed these arrangements.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_138/2025: Judgment on a violation of the building law in the Canton of Valais
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ SA was initially fined 15,500 CHF by the municipal council of U.________ for unlawful construction activities under the provisions of the building law of the Canton of Valais (Art. 61 ff. LC). After an appeal, the cantonal instance reduced the fine to 8,000 CHF. A.________ SA subsequently filed a complaint with the Federal Court aiming for an acquittal or a return of the matter.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_284/2025: Complaint against the non-admittance decision of a request for recusal
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a recusal request against prosecutor Ilaria Tonolla on February 6, 2025, which the Cantonal Court of Graubünden considered late with a decision dated March 10, 2025, and did not admit it. Subsequently, A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Court on March 24, 2025.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_300/2025: Non-admission of a complaint against a non-admission decision related to a violation of traffic regulations
Summary of the Facts
The complainant was fined by the City Court of Zurich for a violation of traffic regulations (exceeding parking time). His objection against the penal order was late and therefore not admitted. Consequently, the appeal to the Zurich Court of Appeals was also unsuccessful. The complainant then filed a complaint with the Federal Court, which examined the matter.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_350/2025: Decision on the formal admissibility of a complaint
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, A.________, filed a complaint against the non-admission decision of the Cantonal Court of Solothurn dated April 2, 2025. The Cantonal Court did not admit a previous complaint from A.________ as it did not meet the justification requirements according to Art. 396 para. 1 and Art. 385 para. 1 and 2 StPO. Despite an extension, the complainant did not submit an improved filing.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
8C_649/2024: Judgment on the re-registration of an invalidity pension with the disability insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________, born in 1984, suffered a traffic accident in 1998 that caused severe skull-brain trauma. She later completed vocational training and worked as a masseuse. In 2016, she applied for disability insurance benefits due to a herniated disc, which was rejected by the IV office in Bern. This decision remained unchallenged. In April 2023, A.________ applied again to the disability insurance and also requested a procedural revision of the original decision. The IV office did not admit the re-application and did not process the revision request. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern dismissed A.________'s complaint.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_933/2024: Judgment on the challenge of a conviction for mendicity
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, a member of the Roma community from Romania, was convicted in Geneva for multiple mendicity according to Art. 11A para. 1 lit. c LPG/GE. After being cited through 13 police orders, the lower court imposed a total fine of 540 CHF. The complainant argued that her precarious situation and insufficient information about the legal situation influenced her actions. She further claimed that the legal regulation was disproportionate and violated her fundamental rights. She filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_216/2024: Prohibition of mendicity according to cantonal law Geneva
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a Romanian citizen, was convicted by the Geneva Police Court for unauthorized mendicity according to Art. 11A of the Geneva Penal Code. The case involved two specific situations in which she begged for money in front of commercial establishments. She appealed against the judgment, claiming discrimination by the legal regulation and presenting her economic situation as an existential emergency. The cantonal instance reduced the fine but upheld the conviction in essence. A.________ then turned to the Federal Court, requesting her full acquittal and the annulment of the cantonal decision.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1446/2024: Non-admission of a right to appeal in a criminal case
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a complaint against a non-initiation order from the Public Prosecutor of the Vaud district dated May 6, 2024. The lower instance rejected the complaint on October 4, 2024. A.________ subsequently filed a complaint with the Federal Court on December 24, 2024, which was based on the criminal quality for filing a complaint (Art. 81 para. 1 lit. b No. 5 BGG) and alleged violations of procedural rights.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
9C_30/2025: Judgment on value-added tax for the tax periods 2014–2018
Summary of the Facts
A.________ SA, a company based in U.________ (TI) and VAT liable since 2004, was audited by the Federal Tax Administration (ESTV). A back payment of CHF 209,359 for the tax periods 2014–2018 was imposed, as the input tax deduction was refused. The ESTV classified the company's activity as VAT-exempt financial intermediation. A.________ SA argued that its activity should be classified as consulting and not tax-exempt. The Federal Administrative Court confirmed the ESTV's position.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_763/2024: Decision regarding the bankruptcy office sealing of a warehouse
Summary of the Facts
The bankruptcy office of the Canton of Zug sealed the warehouse with luxury vehicles of the bankrupt B.________ AG after their bankruptcy was declared. The plaintiff A.________ AG, which claims to be a subtenant of the warehouse and owner of the vehicles, requested the lifting of the sealing. The Cantonal Court of Zug confirmed the measure of the bankruptcy office, after which A.________ AG appealed the judgment to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_1044/2023: Judgment on a qualified violation of the Narcotics Act
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was repeatedly suspected of profiting from high-quality cocaine. Based on findings from the "DABAR" operation and phone surveillance, he was charged with a total of 42 cocaine purchases between June and November 2018, involving 250 grams of cocaine mixture and 175 grams of pure cocaine. After an acquittal by the District Court, the Cantonal Court of Zurich convicted A.________ of a qualified violation of the Narcotics Act and sentenced him to a conditional prison sentence of 20 months. A.________ then filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_702/2024: Judgment on a traffic rule violation on a shared bike and pedestrian path
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was fined CHF 100 for a simple traffic rule violation (failure to yield) in connection with a traffic accident on February 18, 2020. The collision between him and an E-bike rider (B.________) occurred on a shared bike and pedestrian path. B.________ was acquitted of the charge of violating traffic rules. A.________ demanded his own acquittal as well as punishment and liability for damages from B.________. The Cantonal Court of St. Gallen dismissed the appeal on June 17, 2024.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
1C_248/2025: Decision of the Federal Court on international legal assistance in criminal matters
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court decided on the admissibility of an appeal for international legal assistance in criminal matters. The Croatian citizen A.________ contested his impending extradition to Croatia, which was approved by the UFG and confirmed by the CRP, to serve a prison sentence of one year. The extradition is based on an additional request from Croatia. The appeal also concerns the rejection of free legal assistance.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_306/2025: Objection against penal order and unjustified absence at the hearing
Summary of the Facts
The complainant was fined for disobedience in the enforcement procedure by penal order. After filing an objection, she was repeatedly summoned to a hearing but failed to appear without justification multiple times, despite warnings about the consequences of default. The Statthalteramt therefore determined that the penal order had become legally binding and did not admit the objection. The Cantonal Court of Zurich confirmed this view. The complainant then filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
7B_306/2025: Inadmissibility of a criminal law appeal procedure
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a criminal complaint for defamation and possibly slander in the Canton of Geneva, which the Geneva State Ministry rejected on January 23, 2025, with a non-initiation order according to Art. 310 para. 1 lit. b StPO. The complainant appealed this order to the Criminal Chamber of the Geneva Court, which dismissed the complaint on March 7, 2025, as far as it was admitted. The complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Court on April 4, 2025.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
6B_338/2025: Inadmissibility of a complaint procedure in criminal matters
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was conditionally sentenced by the Police Court of the Canton of Geneva to a fine of 30 daily rates of 30 francs for defamation. The conviction was confirmed in the appeal process on March 6, 2025, by the Criminal Chamber of the Cantonal Court. A.________ filed a complaint in criminal matters with the Federal Court on April 5, 2025, and also requested free legal aid.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.
5A_396/2025: Complaint against the rejection of a recusal request in the context of a child return procedure
Summary of the Facts
In the return procedure concerning two children to Spain, the complainant filed a recusal request against the presiding judge of the Cantonal Court of Bern. She justified this with an alleged bias of the judge during settlement negotiations. The Cantonal Court rejected the request. The complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the Portal.