Judikative (Rechtsprechung): Bundesgericht, Bundesstrafgericht, Bundesverwaltungsgericht
Executive summary
The Swiss federal judiciary is made up of four federal courts: the Federal Supreme Court (the highest court), the Federal Criminal Court, the Federal Administrative Court and the Federal Patent Court; the Federal Supreme Court issues final rulings on disputes between individuals, cantons and the Confederation and ensures uniform application of federal law [1] [2]. Federal judges are elected by Parliament for limited terms and the system reflects Switzerland’s strong federalism and limits on judicial review of parliamentary acts under direct democracy [3] [4].
1. How the three courts you named fit into the federal landscape
The Federal Supreme Court sits at the top: it is the final instance on appeals from cantonal courts and the federal first‑instance courts and guarantees uniform application of federal law across civil, criminal and administrative domains [2] [5]. The Federal Administrative Court is one of the federal courts of first instance that reviews decisions of the federal administration and some cantonal administrative acts; it is the largest federal court and specializes in administrative‑law disputes [6] [5]. The Federal Criminal Court handles the relatively few crimes that fall under federal criminal jurisdiction — organized crime, terrorism and offences against federal institutions — and decides disputes between cantonal prosecuting authorities [5] [1].
2. Institutional roles and case types you can expect in each
Expect the Federal Supreme Court to decide appeals on constitutional questions, federal law and conflicts between cantons, and to develop case law where statutes are unclear [2] [7]. The Federal Administrative Court reviews the legality of rulings by federal agencies — for example asylum, migration, social‑insurance or regulatory decisions — and publishes its decisions; it employs hundreds of staff across language regions [6]. The Federal Criminal Court tries federal offences listed in the Criminal Procedure Code and operates chambers for trial and appeal in federal criminal matters [5] [8].
3. Political checks, selection of judges and democratic context
Swiss federal judges are elected by the United Federal Assembly, often on a partisan basis and for fixed six‑year terms; Parliament’s political balance therefore influences court composition [3]. The system explicitly balances judicial independence with democratic control: because direct democracy limits parliamentary acts subject to judicial review, the Federal Supreme Court cannot freely review acts of the Federal Parliament except where statute permits — a structural restraint born of Swiss constitutional design [4] [7].
4. Recent flashpoints showing how these courts matter in practice
Federal courts can reshape high‑stakes outcomes: for example, the Federal Administrative Court ruled in 2025 that the write‑off of 16.5 billion CHF in AT1 Credit Suisse bonds was unlawful, directly challenging how regulators and the government handled a banking crisis and raising questions about emergency powers and financial hierarchy [9]. That ruling illustrates that administrative judicial review can reverse or constrain executive/regulatory emergency measures [9].
5. Fragmented federalism and the courts’ harmonising role
Switzerland’s cantons retain broad judicial autonomy, producing great diversity across cantonal courts; the Federal Supreme Court’s core function is to harmonise the application of federal and international law across this patchwork, stepping in when federal law requires uniformity [3] [7]. Where statutes are silent or ambiguous, the Supreme Court’s case law fills gaps and guides lower courts [2].
6. Where reporting is thin or contested — limitations of the record
Available sources document structure, functions and notable decisions but do not provide exhaustive operational data here: for instance, detailed caseload statistics for each court, procedural timelines, or recent internal reforms beyond digital projects are not fully described in the supplied material (not found in current reporting). The large‑scale digital transition project “Justitia 4.0” and the creation of a public‑law corporation for shared judicial IT are mentioned, but implementation details and effects on case handling are not fully reported in these sources [10].
7. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas to watch
Sources emphasize judicial independence and harmonisation [7] [2], while parliamentary election of judges injects political balance into appointments [3] — a tension between technocratic independence and democratic legitimacy. Administrative courts sometimes face criticism in the press (the FAC responded to Weltwoche allegations in its own communications), showing that courts can become political targets and that media narratives may aim to shape public trust in judicial bodies [6].
8. Bottom line for readers seeking orientation
If you need final rulings on federal law or to appeal a cantonal high‑court decision, the Federal Supreme Court is the endpoint; for disputes with federal authorities, turn first to the Federal Administrative Court; for rare federal criminal cases use the Federal Criminal Court [2] [6] [5]. Keep in mind Switzerland’s institutional design: courts operate within a federal, direct‑democratic system that both empowers and constrains judicial review, and Parliament’s role in judge selection colors the courts’ political and legal posture [4] [3].