Latest Federal Supreme Court Judgments
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 adapted to your legal fields.
7B_178/2026: Judgment on the Lawfulness of Preventive Detention and Violation of the Right to be Heard
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was accused of commercial fraud amounting to CHF 28.1 million. After being arrested on the basis of an international arrest warrant and extradited to Switzerland, he was held in preventive detention. According to cantonal findings, he was unlawfully detained from November 23 to November 28, 2025, and from November 23 to December 15, 2025. A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court against the extension of the preventive detention following several detention law decisions, particularly alleging a violation of his right to reply.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** The Federal Supreme Court found the complaint admissible, as the other substantive prerequisites were met. However, it pointed out that a subsequent submission due to the expiry of the deadline was inadmissible. - **E.2:** It was criticized that the contested presidential order was insufficiently reasoned, constituting both a violation of Art. 112 para. 1 BGG and impairing clarity and comprehensibility. - **E.3:** A.________'s right to reply was violated because he was not given the opportunity to respond to the oral statements of the public prosecutor during the detention hearing. This is a central element of the right to be heard under both national and European Court of Human Rights case law. - **E.4:** Referral back to the lower court was necessary to conduct an adversarial detention procedure. The Federal Supreme Court could not carry out a substantive review of the detention prerequisites.
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaint was partially upheld, the contested order was annulled, and the lower court was obliged to conduct a new detention procedure. Costs were imposed on the canton of Zurich.
2C_120/2026: Non-admission of the Complaint in the Disciplinary Proceedings for Lawyers
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was fined by the bar supervisory commission of the canton of Appenzell Ausserrhoden in disciplinary proceedings under bar law. He appealed to the Appenzell Ausserrhoden Higher Court, which did not admit the appeal due to late filing. A.________ challenged this non-admission decision before the Federal Supreme Court, arguing that health impairments had prevented timely action. He also complained about the allegedly inconsistent consideration of medical certificates by the lower court.
Summary of the Considerations
The bar supervisory commission of the canton of Appenzell Ausserrhoden fined A.________ CHF 3,000 for breach of professional rules. The appeal filed by the complainant with the higher court was deemed late. The lower court order is a final cantonal decision in a public-law matter, against which an appeal in public-law matters is admissible. The complaint must meet specific requirements, particularly regarding the judicial reasoning obligation when alleging cantonal legal violations (qualified objection obligation). The lower court's fact-finding can only be challenged under narrow conditions (manifestly incorrect findings of fact). The lower court rejected the complainant’s request for reinstatement of the deadline because the documents (medical certificates) did not sufficiently explain why a third party could not be entrusted. The complainant’s documents and argument that the lower court had previously approved an extension found no support in the contested decision. Concrete legal violations were also not sufficiently addressed. The complaint was obviously insufficiently reasoned, resulting in non-admission of this remedy.
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaint was dismissed and the court costs were imposed on the complainant, without any party compensation awarded.
2C_382/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint in Public Law Matters and Dismissal of the Subsidiary Constitutional Complaint
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ applied for funding contributions for the renovation of her building according to Minergie standards. The building department of the canton of Zurich approved a subsidy of up to CHF 649,880, which the complainant challenged in court, demanding a higher subsidy of CHF 1,174,700 or minimum amounts. Both the government council and the administrative court of Zurich rejected her remedies. A.________ then filed a complaint in public law matters and a subsidiary constitutional complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examines its jurisdiction and finds that the subsidy is a discretionary subsidy and thus the complaint in public law matters under Art. 83 lit. k BGG is inadmissible. It examines whether the subsidiary constitutional complaint is admissible. This is only admissible in connection with the allegation of legitimate expectation protection. The complainant relies on legitimate expectation protection regarding a calculation by the funding calculator. The Federal Supreme Court finds no sufficient legitimate expectation basis because the calculator contained a non-binding estimate and a binding decision by the building department already existed. The subsidiary constitutional complaint is dismissed as unfounded.
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court did not proceed to the complaint in public law matters and dismissed the subsidiary constitutional complaint. The court costs were imposed on the complainant.
8C_402/2025: Dismissal of the Application for Premium Reduction
Summary of the Facts
A.________ applied for the consideration of fictitious, unavailable assets in calculating the 2024 premium reduction. The request was rejected by the compensation office of the canton of Solothurn because the taxable assets exceeded the applicable threshold. The objection decision was confirmed by the insurance court of the canton of Solothurn.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_182/2026: Inadmissibility of the Complaint
Summary of the Facts
The complainant filed a complaint on March 6, 2026, against a judgment of the Higher Court of the canton of Aargau dated March 5, 2026, which, however, was only orally pronounced and does not yet contain a written reasoning.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_803/2025: Federal Supreme Court Judgment 6B_803/2025
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, A.________, was convicted by the criminal court of the canton of Zug on March 7, 2024, for multiple commercial frauds and an offense against Art. 44 FINMAG to five years and four months imprisonment; a substitute claim of CHF 300,000 was imposed. The higher court increased the prison sentence on August 19, 2025, to seven years, set the substitute claim to CHF 798,296.20, and ordered the compulsory enforcement of a seized property in Spain. A.________ filed a complaint requesting a partial acquittal, a sentence reduction, and modified substitute claims.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_199/2026: Inadmissibility of the Complaint
Summary of the Facts
In the context of a divorce agreement, the parties made arrangements regarding a life insurance for the children and the sale of a property. After disagreements arose about the appointment of a broker, the civil district court authorized the respondent to appoint a broker alone. This decision was confirmed by the cantonal court of Basel-Landschaft. The complainant filed a complaint against this with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_128/2026: Inadmissibility of the Complaint
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a remedy with the Federal Supreme Court against a decision of the lower court. The case concerned a judgment of the Cour d’appel pénal of the Tribunal cantonal de l'État de Fribourg dated November 28, 2025, whereby the complainant chiefly contested the imposed prison sentence of 42 months and the order of a stationary therapeutic measure. The complainant, however, did not sufficiently present the subject of the complaint and missed the deadline for filing the complaint.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_58/2026: Inadmissibility of a Complaint in Proceedings Regarding Disability Insurance
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a complaint against the interim decision of the canton court of Lucerne, which rejected his request for legal aid in connection with an allowance for helplessness. The dispute concerned in particular the obligation to provide an advance on costs and the necessity of free legal representation.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_131/2026: Judgment Concerning the Extension of Deportation Detention
Summary of the Facts
A.________, known under several identities, was expelled from Switzerland as well as the Schengen area and the EU for multiple criminal offenses. After six months of deportation detention, the detention was extended for another three months. The judgment of the Appellate Court Basel-Stadt as administrative court confirmed this extension. A.________ filed a complaint against this judgment with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_371/2025: Dismissal of the Complaint for Tax Evasion
Summary of the Facts
The taxpayer was head of a luxury goods company and was fined for tax evasion and tax avoidance, both as a natural person and in connection with his company. Previously, the cantonal tax administration of Geneva had initiated several proceedings for tax evasion. As a result, additional tax assessments and fines were imposed on the taxpayer and his wife.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_673/2025: Spousal Maintenance in Protective Proceedings (Inadmissibility of the Complaint)
Summary of the Facts
The complainant (A.________) was ordered in protective proceedings by the first-instance court to pay the respondent (B.________) monthly spousal maintenance of CHF 4,690 from July 2024. His appeal against this order was dismissed in July 2025 by the Higher Court of the canton of Solothurn. The complainant then filed a civil complaint with the Federal Supreme Court aiming at non-admission of the maintenance claim or referral of the decision for re-assessment to the higher court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_1422/2025: Judgment on Official Defense and Non-admission Decision in Simplified Procedure
Summary of the Facts
On November 18, 2025, the canton court of Lucerne dismissed the official defense counsel Michèle Ackermann and requested the complainant to appoint a new official defense. After the complainant did not respond within the set deadline, a new official defense counsel was appointed retroactively. The complainant filed two complaints against this, which are now being handled by the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_188/2026: Non-admission of a Complaint Concerning Payment Order
Summary of the Facts
A payment order was issued by the debt enforcement office of the Rorschach region against the estate of C.________. D.________, the complainant’s brother and member of the community of heirs, accepted service on behalf of the estate without raising an objection. The complainant filed multiple complaints, which were dismissed or not admitted by both the district court of Rorschach and the cantonal court of St. Gallen (cantonal supervisory authority for debt enforcement and bankruptcy). Before the Federal Supreme Court, the complainant submitted a "revision complaint," which was treated as a complaint.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_995/2025: Judgment on Sentencing and Listing in the Schengen Information System
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was sentenced by the district court of Dietikon on January 25, 2024, for attempted robbery, simple bodily injury, multiple trespassing, and minor theft to 25 months imprisonment, a fine, and a six-year expulsion order. The district court also ordered the listing of the expulsion in the Schengen Information System (SIS). The higher court of the canton of Zurich confirmed this judgment on October 8, 2025. A.________ filed a criminal appeal requesting the removal of the sanction points and the SIS listing.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_1395/2025: Non-admission of a Complaint Regarding the Change of Official Defense
Summary of the Facts
The complainant filed a complaint against a decision of the public prosecutor’s office of the canton of Schwyz dated August 19, 2025, concerning the change of official defense. The canton court of Schwyz did not admit the complaint due to untimely filing. A complaint was filed against this decision with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_605/2024: Partial Upholding of the Complaint Regarding Cost Allocation
Summary of the Facts
The complainant (A.________) was convicted in first instance, among other things, for multiple offenses such as simple bodily injury, property damage, and driving a vehicle without liability insurance to imprisonment and fines as well as a fine. He appealed this judgment, whereby the lower court annulled or adjusted some convictions. Disputed were, among other things, the consideration of the right to be heard, the credibility of statements of a non-present incriminating witness, and the cost allocation of the lower court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_388/2024: Judgment Concerning Change of Business Plan and Tariff Adjustment in Supplementary Insurance to Social Health Insurance
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ AG, active in the area of supplementary insurance to social health insurance, applied to FINMA in 2021 for approval of premium increases for several products, including "Emergency Insurance" (NV, +6.3%) and "Insurance for Chronic Care" (VCK, +8.2%). FINMA approved only reduced increases (NV: +2.7%, VCK: +2.5%) and rejected the main applications. The Federal Administrative Court confirmed this decision, and A.________ AG filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_695/2025: Judgment on Insurance Law (Occupational Disease)
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ reported health complaints in 2022 due to odor emissions at the workplace. Following medical investigations and an indoor air report, SOLIDA Insurance AG rejected recognition as an occupational disease as well as the payment of insurance benefits. The lower court dismissed the complaint against this decision.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_548/2025: Judgment on Protective Measures in Marriage
Summary of the Facts
The complainant (A.________) and the respondent (B.________) are separated parents of a son. After judicial separation, custody and maintenance claims were regulated. The canton court of St. Gallen provisionally and later definitively transferred custody of the son to the father, while granting the mother regulated contact rights. The tense relationship between the parties was influenced by family psychological expert reports and restrictions (including travel ban). The respective cost and maintenance arrangements as well as the mother’s application for legal aid were subjects of the proceedings.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_66/2026: Judgment on Deportation Detention of a Burundian National
Summary of the Facts
The Burundian national A.________, whose asylum application filed in 2022 was finally rejected in 2024, remained in Switzerland after the deadline to leave expired and refused to voluntarily return to her home country citing health and political reasons. After a failed return attempt in November 2025 due to her behavior, she was placed in deportation detention. She filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court requesting her release from detention, citing disproportionality of the measure, foreseeability of the enforcement of the expulsion, and her capacity to endure detention.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.