Latest Judgments of the Federal Supreme Court
Here you will find the most recent judgments of the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) from bger.ch. For the first three judgments, we present detailed summaries with facts, considerations, and dispositives. For the further judgments, you will find a summary of the facts in each case. The full summaries of all judgments are available in the Lexplorer portal. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest judgments individually tailored to your areas of law.
7B_1297/2025: Judgment on Cost Orders in Connection with Court-Appointed Defense
Summary of the Facts
In the proceedings concerning the appointment of a private defense counsel as court-appointed defense and in the context of the discussion about the accused's legal aid, the Federal Supreme Court decides on the imposition of procedural costs on the legal representative. The lower court (Zurich Higher Court) had made the defense counsel partially liable for costs due to professional misconduct.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E. 1:** The complainant's standing, who participated in the proceedings as the accused's private defense counsel, is affirmed. The formal requirements for lodging the complaint are met. The complaint is admissible. - **E. 2.1:** The complainant criticizes the cost liability imposed on him and argues that he committed no procedural errors. - **E. 2.2:** According to Art. 417 CCP, procedural costs can be imposed on third parties if caused by errors in the proceedings. However, cost imposition on legal counsel is proportionate only in clear cases of serious errors. - **E. 2.3:** The repeated filing of a request for court-appointed defense with identical arguments and insufficient documents, despite other indications by the court, is qualified as an obvious professional malpractice justifying the lower court's cost imposition. - **E. 3:** In summary, the court sees no violation of federal law in the contested cost order.
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaint is dismissed, and the court costs are imposed on the complainant. Furthermore, the written notification of the judgment to the parties is ordered.
9C_578/2025: Income Deduction for Purchase into the 2nd Pillar and Three-Year Blocking Period According to Art. 79b Para. 3 Sent. 1 BVG
Summary of the Facts
The complainants requested that a support payment of CHF 93,600, made by the former employer from a hardship fund and paid into the pension fund, be tax-deductible for the 2021 tax year. The cantonal tax administration refused the deduction because capital payments from the pension fund had been drawn within the three-year blocking period provided by Art. 79b para. 3 sent. 1 BVG. This decision was confirmed by the Basel-Landschaft Cantonal Court, whereupon the complainants filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The Federal Supreme Court jointly handles two complaints (direct federal tax and cantonal taxes of Basel-Landschaft) because they concern the same facts and legal question. The complaints are admissible. - **E.3-E.3.3:** The dispute concerns whether the payment of CHF 93,600 is tax-deductible. Due to the statutory three-year blocking period according to Art. 79b para. 3 sent. 1 BVG, a purchase into the 2nd pillar may not be tax-deductible if capital benefits are drawn within three years. This rule applies regardless of whether the withdrawal is from the same or another pension institution. - **E.5:** The Federal Supreme Court confirms that the capital benefits drawn by the complainant from the pension fund exclude the tax deduction of the purchase. No differentiation between "pension pot" and "capital pot" exists for tax purposes. - **E.5.2.1-E.5.2.2:** The reference to earlier judgments where tax deductions for bridging pensions were examined is also unhelpful, as in the present case there is no targeted financing of a temporary bridging pension. - **E.5.3:** The application of Art. 24 lit. c DBG, which under certain conditions treats capital payments as tax-neutral, is rejected because the support payment was paid into the pension fund of the former employer, not the new employer's pension institution. - **E.5.4:** A claim to legitimate expectation protection is denied because the submitted official information did not contain a binding assurance of the requested tax neutrality. Moreover, there was no clear asset disposition.
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses both complaints and imposes the costs of the proceedings on the complainants. The proceedings are consolidated.
6B_370/2025: Judgment on Abuse of Trust and Fraudulent Bankruptcy
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, A.A.________, was convicted in connection with investments in real estate in Eastern European countries and the related management of substantial funds. The proceedings include allegations such as abuse of trust (Art. 138 para. 1 no. 2 SCC), fraudulent bankruptcy (Art. 163 no. 1 SCC), and actual asset reduction to the detriment of creditors (Art. 164 no. 1 SCC). The lower court sentenced him to 42 months imprisonment. A.A.________ appealed the judgment to the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The claim of violation of the right to be heard due to a judgment in absence was examined. The Federal Supreme Court judges found that the conditions for proceedings in absence pursuant to Art. 366 CCP were met. The complainant actively evaded participation by concealing his whereabouts. - **E.2:** Regarding the proceedings by the co-plaintiffs (B.________ Ltd, C.________ Inc., and D.________ Sàrl), their entitlement to have a legitimate interest in contesting the first-instance decision even without civil claims was confirmed. - **E.3:** The request for evidence collection (e.g., personal hearing of witnesses) was rejected because it was not decisive given the case files. - **E.4:** The conviction for abuse of trust was confirmed, as the complainant had misused entrusted funds for personal purposes, including the purchase of luxury goods. - **E.5:** Regarding the sentence, the imposed penalty – considering the violation of the acceleration principle by the lower court – was deemed lawful. A 10% reduction for procedural delay was recognized. - **E.6:** The complaints regarding the violation of the acceleration principle were dismissed, as the imposed sanction was appropriate to the facts.
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaint was dismissed, and the complainant was ordered to pay the procedural costs and party compensation to the co-plaintiffs. Overall, well-founded legal decisions are reflected in the dispositive.
9C_140/2026: Judgment on Property Gains Tax of the Canton of Bern for the 2018 Tax Period
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ AG applied to the Bern cantonal governor's office for remission of the property gains tax for the 2018 tax period. The Bern cantonal tax appeals commission did not consider the appeal due to late submission. The Bern Administrative Court confirmed this decision. Against this, A.________ AG and B.________ filed a complaint in public law matters before the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_108/2026: Non-Admissibility of a Complaint in Connection with Legal Aid
Summary of the Facts
The St. Gallen Cantonal Court rejected the complainant's request for legal aid for an appeal procedure. Against this decision, the complainant filed an unsubstantiated complaint with the Federal Supreme Court and additionally requested an inadmissible extension of the statutory complaint deadline.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_48/2026: Judgment Concerning Opening of Bankruptcy Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
By judgment of October 21, 2025, the Horgen District Court opened bankruptcy proceedings over the complainant. The Zurich Higher Court, II Civil Chamber, dismissed the complaint filed against this judgment on January 12, 2026, and reopened the bankruptcy. The complainant then filed a civil complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_389/2025: Review of a Conviction for Negligent Simple Bodily Injury in a Traffic Case
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was accused of having overlooked and thereby injured a pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing in U.________ on December 9, 2021, due to lack of attention as a vehicle driver. The lower courts convicted her of negligent simple bodily injury. A.________ filed a complaint and requested acquittal or dismissal of the proceedings.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_135/2026: Judgment on Non-Admissibility of Complaints Against Interim Orders in a Social Assistance Procedure
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ sought multiple precautionary measures before the Zurich Cantonal Administrative Court in a dispute with the municipality of Zollikon regarding social assistance benefits, which were rejected. A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court. An earlier complaint was already dismissed as insufficiently substantiated by judgment 8C_80/2026 of February 9, 2026. The present complaints (8C_135/2026 and 8C_136/2026) concern renewed interim orders of the Administrative Court dated January 19 and 29, 2026.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_343/2025: Pledge Default Certificate in Special Liquidation Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
In the context of the bankruptcy of C.________ AG, the bankruptcy office conducted special liquidation proceedings under Art. 230a para. 2 SchKG, in which a pledge default certificate was issued for Bank B.________ as mortgage creditor. The complainant A.________, joint guarantor of the bankrupt company, filed a complaint against the pledge default certificate with the cantonal court, which was dismissed.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_110/2026: Decision Regarding Authorization to Open a Criminal Investigation
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a criminal complaint in September 2025 against various persons, including a public prosecutor and persons from the St. Gallen cantonal police, for alleged unlawful acts related to the handling of previous criminal complaints. The St. Gallen Public Prosecutor's Office refused authorization to open a criminal investigation against the persons concerned by decision of February 4, 2026. The complainant filed a complaint against this decision with the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_68/2025: Dismissal of the Complaint Regarding Sexual Coercion
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was acquitted by the police court of the district of La Broye and Nord Vaudois on June 3, 2024, of the charge of sexual coercion. After appeal by the opposing party B.________, the Vaud Cantonal Court amended the judgment and on October 29, 2024, convicted A.________ of sexual coercion to a conditional imprisonment of twelve months with a probation period of three years and deportation for five years. The complainant alleged before the Federal Supreme Court a violation of the presumption of innocence and arbitrary evaluation of evidence.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_112/2026: Inadmissibility of the Complaint and Recusal Request
Summary of the Facts
The complainant filed a complaint against a decision of the Thurgau Higher Court of January 20, 2026, which dismissed her request for remission of procedural fees imposed on her. She also filed a recusal request against Federal Judge Hurni and the entire I. Civil Law Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_146/2026: Judgment on Administrative Fees of the Canton of Solothurn for the 2025 Tax Period
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was charged an administrative fee of CHF 58.30 by the Finance Department of the Canton of Solothurn due to a diary rejection in the land register. The Finance Department did not consider the appeal for lack of advance payment of costs. The Solothurn Cantonal Tax Court dismissed A.________'s complaint on January 12, 2026, to the extent it admitted it. A.________ then filed a request with the Federal Supreme Court for reversal of a property purchase or repayment of an amount of money including interest and compensation.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_1063/2023: Judgment on Mismanagement, Principle of Prosecution, Sentencing and Restitution Claim
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was criminally charged, including for mismanagement under Art. 165 SCC and failure to keep accounts (Art. 166 SCC). The Aargau Cantonal Public Prosecutor issued a penal order in 2020 imposing on A.________ a conditional fine of 160 daily rates and a fine of CHF 10,000 as well as a restitution claim of CHF 430,000. After objection and appeal, the criminally competent 2nd Chamber of the Aargau Higher Court in 2023 reduced the restitution claim to CHF 311,043.20 but upheld the conditional fine and penalty. The main allegation concerned undeclared profits from real estate transactions, missing bookkeeping, and unlawful asset withdrawals.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_1296/2025: Appointment of a Court-Appointed Defense Counsel in a Criminal Proceeding and Legal Aid
Summary of the Facts
A.________ is accused in a criminal proceeding of serious allegations. His attempt to have attorney B.________ appointed retroactively as court-appointed defense counsel was rejected several times. The complaints filed by him and his lawyer opposed, inter alia, the rejection of free defense and the refusal to convert the chosen defense into a court-appointed defense.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_673/2025: Judgment Concerning Residual Financing of Care Costs
Summary of the Facts
A.________, under combined guardianship according to the Civil Code since 2015, was housed in various institutions several times before entering a nursing home in 2019. The residual financing of care costs was established at the expense of the city of Rorschach according to the decision of the St. Gallen Compensation Office (June 20, 2019). This decision became final. Later, the city of Rorschach filed a reconsideration request, which was rejected by the Compensation Office and subsequently by the St. Gallen Insurance Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_263/2025: Decision on the Helplessness Allowance
Summary of the Facts
A.A.________, born 1934, applied for a helplessness allowance in April 2024. The competent cantonal compensation office granted a medium degree helplessness allowance from June 1, 2024, based on a medical report and supplementary information; following the insured’s objection, this was partially adjusted by decision of August 7, 2024, to a low degree allowance from April 1, 2023, and medium degree from January 1, 2024. The cantonal court partially overturned the second-instance decision on appeal by the insured and granted a medium degree helplessness allowance from April 1, 2023. A.A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court demanding recognition of a severe degree helplessness allowance.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_359/2025: Order for a DNA Profile
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, a Brazilian national, was suspected of various offenses including threats, coercion and attempts thereof, as well as drug consumption. After repeated incidents in the family environment, the Geneva Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered the creation of a DNA profile on February 21, 2025, which the lower court confirmed on March 21, 2025. The complainant turned to the Federal Supreme Court requesting the annulment of the order and deletion of any DNA profile created.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4D_32/2026: Inadmissibility of the Complaint and Dismissal of the Request for Legal Aid
Summary of the Facts
The complainant applied for legal aid before the Zofingen District Court, which was rejected by decision of November 19, 2025. A complaint against this decision to the Aargau Higher Court was unsuccessful on January 5, 2026. The complainant then filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court on February 27/28, 2026, together with a request for legal aid for the federal proceedings.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_719/2025: Dismissal of the Request for Legal Aid
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.A., represented by her father, filed a complaint with the cantonal court against the decision of the Invalidity Insurance Tribunal of the Canton of Vaud concerning contributions for assistance services. In November 2025, the complainant applied for legal aid at the cantonal court. This application was rejected, upon which the complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_108/2026: Inadmissibility of the Complaint in Connection with Freedom of Expression
Summary of the Facts
The complainants asserted a violation of their right to freedom of expression at the Rectorate of the University of Geneva, in connection with insufficient information provided to the Grand Council of Geneva about a petition they submitted. After the procedure was handled by several instances, the University Rectorate declared their submission inadmissible on December 1, 2025, which prompted the lower court to strike the complaint as moot. The complainants requested the Federal Supreme Court to annul the corresponding decision and to continue the proceedings.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_63/2026: Dismissal of the Complaint
Summary of the Facts
The complainant (A.________ Inc.) filed a complaint against a decision of the Lucerne Cantonal Court of December 19, 2025. However, during the proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court, the complainant withdrew the complaint by letter dated February 25, 2026.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_1006/2024: Judgment on Non-Admissibility of a Complaint Against the Termination of a Criminal Proceeding
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a criminal complaint on October 7, 2022, against B.________, an employee of C.________ AG, because B.________ allegedly contributed by his conduct to A.________ suing the wrong party (D.________ AG instead of C.________ AG). This led to dismissal of the lawsuit and caused considerable costs. The public prosecutor discontinued the proceedings on January 16, 2024. The Zurich Higher Court dismissed a complaint against the termination order on July 4, 2024, to the extent it admitted it.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_895/2025: Postponement of the Enforcement of a Prison Sentence
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a Swiss citizen, was finally convicted of attempted grievous bodily harm and additional offenses to 32 months imprisonment and a fine of 57 daily rates. The sentence enforcement was to begin on December 16, 2024. A.________ requested postponement of the sentence until completion of his vocational training in September 2027. The lower court rejected the request, as did a subsequent cantonal appeal process.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4D_5/2026: Non-Admissibility of a Complaint Against the Dismissal of a Request for Legal Opening
Summary of the Facts
The complainant requested provisional legal opening in connection with the payment of a net salary. This request was dismissed by the single judge of the Höfe District Court, as was his request for legal aid. The Schwyz Cantonal Court confirmed this dismissal. The complainant then filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court, demanding payment of his net salary or referral back to the lower court. He also requested legal aid.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_840/2025: Order of Custody According to Art. 62c Para. 4 in Conjunction with Art. 64 Para. 1 Lit. b SCC
Summary of the Facts
The Baden District Court sentenced A.________ in 2012 for murder, multiple, partly attempted and qualified robbery, as well as attempted qualified arson to 20 years imprisonment and ordered an outpatient measure for treatment of mental disorders. This outpatient measure was lifted in 2021 and replaced by an inpatient therapeutic measure under Art. 59 SCC, which was lifted in 2024 due to hopelessness and lack of suitable facilities. Following a request by the enforcement authority for custody, the Baden District Court ordered custody in 2024, which the Aargau Higher Court confirmed in 2025.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_84/2026: Non-Acceptance of a Complaint Concerning Tenant Eviction
Summary of the Facts
The single judge audience of the Zurich District Court ordered the complainant on December 15, 2025, to vacate his one-room apartment immediately. A complaint against this was dismissed by the Zurich Higher Court on January 14, 2026. The complainant then turned to the Federal Supreme Court on February 16, 2026. A request for suspensive effect was previously rejected by the president of the I. Civil Law Chamber on February 20, 2026.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_587/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, A.________, opposed a judgment of the lower court (Cantonal Court of Vaud, Social Insurance Court) which had declared her complaint against an objection decision by Hotela Assurances SA inadmissible. She argued in particular that she had timely corrected the deficiencies in her original legal brief, which was assessed differently by the lower court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4D_2/2026: Non-Admissibility of the Complaint
Summary of the Facts
The complainant had filed a remission request with the Solothurn Higher Court, which was dismissed on November 11, 2025. He filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court against this decision. He made various requests, including a recusal request against federal judges, appointment of a lawyer, and granting of legal aid.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.