Latest Rulings of the Federal Court
Here you will find the latest 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 subsequent 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.
9C_534/2024: Decision regarding cantonal and municipal taxes in the Canton of Geneva for the tax period 2016
Summary of the Facts
The taxpayer A.________ initially engaged in dependent employment in Geneva during the tax year 2016 and began working independently from July 2016. Following requests from the Geneva tax authority, he failed to submit his tax return. In 2017, the Geneva tax authority initially decided not to assess him for cantonal and municipal taxes (ICC) for the tax year 2016. Later, the tax authority of the Canton of Vaud informed Geneva about income from the taxpayer's independent activity. This led to a reassessment of tax and a fine for tax evasion. The Federal Court reviewed the proceedings and the legal situation concerning the reassessment and the fine.
Summary of the Considerations
E.1: The complaint in public law matters is admissible. The taxpayer has properly filed a complaint and met the requirements for legal remedies. E.2: The Federal Court generally reviews the application of the law freely, but the actions of the tax authority do not justify an arbitrary presentation of facts. E.3: The dispute concerns the statute of limitations on the right to tax assessment, the conditions for reassessment procedures, and the amount of a fine issued. Geneva law is examined analogously to federal law. E.4: The decision of the Geneva tax authority from 2017 not to assess the taxpayer for the ICC was classified as a final decision with legal effect. E.5: The five-year statute of limitations for tax assessments was interrupted because the tax authority had made a decision in 2017. The right to initiate a reassessment procedure and prosecution had not expired. E.6: The Geneva tax authority was allowed to initiate a reassessment procedure as it only learned about the taxpayer's income from self-employment in 2018. There was no gross negligence on the part of the authority. E.7: The taxpayer was found guilty of at least negligence for tax evasion because he had not cooperated sufficiently with the tax authority. The amount of the fine (0.5 times the evaded tax amount) is lawful, as it respects the legal framework and adequately considers the severity of the breach of duty.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint is dismissed and the procedural costs are imposed on the complainant.
7B_245/2025: Non-acceptance of a complaint due to late payment of the cost advance
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a complaint against a decision of the Cantonal Court of Zurich. However, she failed to make the timely payment of the required cost advance, despite a one-time extension being granted. Furthermore, the complainant's submission did not meet the requirements of the obligation to provide reasons according to Art. 42 para. 2 BGG.
Summary of the Considerations
(E.1) The complainant filed a complaint on March 14, 2025, against the decision of the lower court from January 16, 2025. (E.2) A deadline until April 2, 2025, was set for the payment of a cost advance of CHF 800.--. (E.3) After the deadline expired without use, an extension until May 6, 2025, was set, with an express warning of non-acceptance of the complaint in case of non-payment. The payment was made only on May 7, 2025, and was therefore late. (E.4) The complaint also did not meet the requirements of the obligation to provide reasons according to Art. 42 para. 2 BGG. The single judge therefore decided not to address it in the proceedings according to Art. 108 BGG. (E.5) The court costs were imposed on the complainant according to Art. 66 para. 1 BGG.
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint was not addressed and the court costs were imposed.
7B_317/2025: Missed deadline for a complaint in criminal matters
Summary of the Facts
The complainant filed a complaint in criminal matters against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Bern on December 16, 2024, which confirmed the non-acceptance of a criminal proceeding. The deadline for this complaint ended according to Art. 100 para. 1 BGG on February 3, 2025. However, the complaint was only submitted on April 8, 2025, and was therefore late.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The delivery of the cantonal court decision took place on December 19, 2024. This resulted in the statutory complaint period from January 3 to February 3, 2025. Adherence to this period was mandatory according to the provisions of the Federal Court Act (Art. 48 para. 1 BGG). - **E.2:** The late submission of the complaint on April 8, 2025, rendered it inadmissible. - **E.3:** According to Art. 108 BGG, the complaint was not addressed. The court costs of CHF 500 were imposed on the complainant, taking into account his financial circumstances when determining the costs (Art. 65 para. 2 and Art. 66 para. 1 BGG).
Summary of the Disposition
The complaint was not upheld and court costs were imposed.
8C_168/2025: Entitlement to unemployment compensation – Requirements for exemption from contribution period due to divorce
Summary of the Facts
The plaintiff and her husband ran businesses abroad from 2010 to 2023 and lived mostly outside Switzerland. After the divorce in 2023, the plaintiff returned to Switzerland in January 2024 and applied for unemployment benefits. The cantonal office determined that the conditions for exemption from the contribution period (Art. 14 para. 2 LACI) were not met, particularly due to her lack of residence in Switzerland and her independent employment with her former husband.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
9C_258/2024: Judgment on assessment and inter-cantonal double taxation
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was assessed as unlimited taxable by the Canton of Lucerne for the tax period 2018, as he had established his residence there by the end of 2018. Subsequently, he was also assessed as unlimited by the Canton of Zug for the same tax year. A.________ requested a revision of the original assessment decision in the Canton of Lucerne due to inter-cantonal double taxation. The request for revision was denied due to insufficient diligence in early assertion of the facts. The complainant then approached the Federal Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
1C_304/2025: Non-acceptance of a complaint regarding the revocation of a foreign driver's license
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was legally convicted of a serious violation of road traffic regulations (collision due to faulty driving behavior on September 17, 2024). The Department of Construction and Justice of the Canton of Solothurn subsequently revoked his right to use his foreign driver's license in Switzerland for three months. The measure confirmed by the Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn was challenged by A.________ before the Federal Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
8C_19/2025: Requirements for the assessment of evidence
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, who suffers from various health impairments, reapplied for a disability pension after previous applications were denied. Following various medical reports and investigations, the IV office denied a claim for a pension. The lower court confirmed this, prompting the complainant to approach the Federal Court and request further clarification of the facts.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
8C_55/2025: Determination of the insured annual earnings in the context of a disability pension from the mandatory accident insurance
Summary of the Facts
The dispute concerns the calculation of the insured annual earnings, which serves as the basis for the assessment of the disability pension of an employee who had taken up new employment after an accident and a preceding period of unemployment. The Federal Court decides on the admissibility of the method used to calculate the insured annual earnings, which was carried out by the lower court, and reforms its decision.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
7B_309/2025: Complaint regarding the unsealing and search of a mobile phone: Irrelevance of the proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office of Lucerne conducted a criminal proceeding against A.________ for multiple property damage, coercion, and endangering the safety of a vehicle. A mobile phone was seized during this process. A.________ requested its sealing. The coercive measures court partially granted a request for unsealing from the Public Prosecutor's Office, prompting A.________ to file a complaint with the Federal Court. The Public Prosecutor's Office later stated that the seal had already been removed, but access to the device could not be obtained due to an uncracked password. They withdrew their request for unsealing and requested the dismissal of the proceedings.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
7B_1268/2024: Decision to deny an official defender in an internment procedure
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted in 1994 for murder and serious bodily injury and later transferred to a measure of internment. Since then, the internment has been reviewed annually. In the present case, A.________ applied for legal aid and the appointment of an official defender for the procedure to review his conditional release from internment according to Art. 64b StGB. The cantonal authorities rejected the requests on the grounds that there was no prospect of success for the proceedings.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.
7B_61/2023: Decision on the legal remedy against a dismissal order
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a complaint regarding a dismissal order from the Geneva Public Prosecutor against B.________ (including forgery, money laundering, and false testimony) in connection with criminal allegations. The background is a previous criminal investigation against C.________, the husband of B.________, for property offenses. The lower court found that A.________ had no legal interest in protection due to the lack of direct harm and declared his appeal inadmissible.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the Portal.