Facts

On 12 May 2023, the creditor groups of [D. GmbH] – represented by [A. AG] , [B. GmbH] and [C. SA] – filed an application with the Federal Department of Finance (FDF) for the initiation of administrative proceedings. The aim was to reach an amicable settlement in connection with the insolvency of [D. GmbH] and the recovery of assets that had been seized by the Federal Office of Justice as part of the "Gulnara Karimova et al." case and whose return to the Republic of Uzbekistan had been decided by the Federal Council in May 2018. The FDF qualified the application as a claim for state liability and rejected it by decision of 6 September 2023.

Against this decision, the three companies filed an appeal with the Federal Administrative Court (case reference A-5526/2023) on 10 October 2023, which initiated proceedings. On 13 June 2025, the companies filed a complaint for denial or delay of justice against the Federal Administrative Court with the Federal Supreme Court. They requested a finding that the Federal Administrative Court had committed denial of justice in proceedings A-5526/2023 by failing to take protective measures under Art. 56 APA. Specifically, the issue concerned the blocking of funds deposited in Geneva amounting to at least USD 313 million and a further USD 487 million.

The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the complaint with judgment 2C_330/2025 of 25 November 2025 in a three-judge panel, to the extent that it entertained the matter. In particular, it rejected the application for a finding of denial of justice by the Federal Administrative Court, as the interlocutory decision of the Federal Administrative Court of 29 November 2023 could no longer be challenged independently due to the expiry of the appeal period. On 10 December 2025, the three companies filed a revision request against judgment 2C_330/2025 and requested its annulment as well as the granting of the declaratory relief sought in proceedings 2C_330/2025.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court first examines the admissibility of the revision request. Pursuant to Art. 61 FSCA, judgments of the Federal Supreme Court become final on the day they are rendered, and a renewed review is generally excluded. A revision is only possible under the grounds for revision exhaustively listed in Arts. 121–123 FSCA. The applicants rely on Art. 121 lit. a FSCA, according to which a revision may be requested if provisions on the composition of the court or the recusal of judges were violated. They argue that the Federal Supreme Court deviated in judgment 2C_330/2025 from its long-standing practice according to which official omissions in the presence of a duty to protect should be sanctioned under state liability law. They also allege that the Second Public Law Division did not decide in a five-judge panel contrary to Art. 20 para. 2 FSCA.

The Federal Supreme Court finds, however, that the applicants’ submissions relate exclusively to the substantive question of whether omissions by the instructing judge in proceedings A-5526/2023 are relevant under state liability law with regard to Art. 56 APA. The Federal Supreme Court did not address this question in judgment 2C_330/2025, as it did not entertain the corresponding application for a declaratory relief. The applicants do not address the reasons for non-entertainment in their revision request, with the result that the alleged ground for revision does not cover the non-entertainment decision. Thus, there is no justification showing in what respect the Federal Supreme Court could have set a ground for revision with judgment…