Swiss Federal Tribunal citations appear in at least four different abbreviation forms in Swiss legal literature, depending on the source, the language, and whether the decision was published in the official series or not. A practitioner who encounters BGE 134 III 241 in one source and ATF 134 III 241 in another may not immediately recognize that they are looking at the same decision, cited in German and French respectively. This guide works through every component of the citation structure.
The Two Abbreviation Sets
The Federal Tribunal (Bundesgericht in German, Tribunal federal in French, Tribunale federale in Italian) issues decisions that are published and unpublished. The abbreviations split along this distinction and along language:
Published decisions (official series):
- German:
BGE(Bundesgerichtsentscheid) - French:
ATF(Arret du Tribunal federal) - Italian:
DTF(Decisione del Tribunale federale)
Unpublished decisions (direct retrieval):
- German/general:
BGerwith case number format - French:
TFwith case number format
When you see BGE 134 III 241 and ATF 134 III 241, they are the same decision. The first is cited in a German-language source and the second in a French-language source. The volume number (134), the series (III), and the page number (241) are identical because they refer to the same physical collection.
Anatomy of a Published BGE Citation
A published BGE citation: BGE 134 III 241
- BGE: published series indicator
- 134: volume number (corresponds to the year, approximately; Volume 134 covers decisions from 2008)
- III: series within the volume. The series letters are:
- I: public law (staatsrechtliche / offentlichrechtliche)
- II: civil law, ZGB matters (zivilrechtliche, ZGB)
- III: civil law, OR/commercial matters (zivilrechtliche, OR/Handelsrecht)
- IV: criminal law (Strafrecht)
- V: social insurance (Sozialversicherung)
- 241: starting page of the decision in that volume and series
To find this decision, you go to the Federal Tribunal's online database (bger.ch), navigate to the BGE collection, find volume 134, series III, starting at page 241. Alternatively, search by volume/series/page in the BGE index. The page reference refers to the starting page; citations to specific passages within the decision may add a pinpoint page reference, e.g., BGE 134 III 241 E. 5.1, where E. 5.1 refers to Erwagung (consideration/section) 5.1 of the decision.
Anatomy of an Unpublished BGer Citation
An unpublished BGer citation: BGer, Urteil vom 15. Februar 2019, 4A_388/2018
- BGer: Federal Tribunal, unpublished
- Urteil vom 15. Februar 2019: date of the decision
- 4A_388/2018: case number format. Breaking this down:
- 4: division number (Division 4 of the Federal Tribunal)
- A: appeal type. A = civil law appeal (Beschwerde in Zivilsachen); B = criminal appeal (Beschwerde in Strafsachen); C = some administrative cases; D = other
- 388: sequential number of the case within that year in that division/type
- 2018: the year the case was filed (not decided)
The date and case number together uniquely identify the decision. To find it, use the Federal Tribunal's case law search at bger.ch, entering the case number. The full text of the decision is available there in the language of the proceedings (usually the language of the canton where the appeal originated).
We are not saying that unpublished BGer decisions are less authoritative than BGE decisions on the same legal question. The distinction between published and unpublished reflects the Federal Tribunal's own selection of decisions it considers sufficiently significant for the official series, but unpublished decisions are fully valid precedent and are frequently cited in Swiss proceedings. The practical difference is that unpublished decisions are harder to locate from a citation alone because you need the case number to find them, whereas a BGE citation can be located directly by volume and page in a printed collection.
The Volume-Year Relationship
BGE volume numbers do not correspond exactly to calendar years, but the relationship is close enough that you can estimate the year of a decision from the volume number. Volume 100 covers decisions from approximately 1974; each subsequent volume corresponds to the following year. Volume 134 corresponds to 2008; Volume 147 covers 2021. For precise year identification, check the table of contents in any BGE volume or use the online search with a volume filter.
This matters when you need to assess whether a BGE decision predates a statutory amendment. If the OR provision was amended in 2012 and the BGE you are relying on is from Volume 130 (2004), the holding may be based on a version of the provision that no longer exists.
The Erwagung Structure Within Decisions
Swiss Federal Tribunal decisions are organized into numbered Erwagungen (considerations, abbreviated E.), which correspond to stages of the legal reasoning. A citation to BGE 134 III 241 E. 5.1 points to section 5.1 of the decision, which is a subsection of Erwagung 5.
This pinpoint citation structure is standard in Swiss legal submissions. A citation to a BGE without a pinpoint section reference is less precise and requires the reader to search the decision for the specific proposition being cited. When the proposition you are relying on is in a specific Erwagung, include the E. reference. Courts and opposing counsel will have an easier time verifying your citation, and the precision signals careful research.
Cross-References in BGE Decisions Themselves
BGE decisions frequently cite earlier BGE decisions in their reasoning. These cross-references are part of the doctrine-building function of the Federal Tribunal: each decision builds on prior decisions to develop the consistent application of a legal principle. For research purposes, following these internal BGE cross-references is one of the most efficient ways to trace the development of a legal principle and identify the leading cases.
When we build citation graph structures at Silex Legal, the BGE internal cross-reference network is one of the primary inputs. A provision cited in 40 BGE decisions over 20 years, with a cluster of cross-references pointing to one particular landmark decision, has a very different authority weight than a provision cited in 2 decisions with no internal cross-referencing. The graph structure surfaces that difference in a way that a simple keyword search does not.
