Latest Judgments of the Federal Supreme Court
Here you will find the most current judgments of the Federal Supreme Court (BGer) from bger.ch. For the first three judgments, we present detailed summaries including facts, considerations, and dispositives. For the further judgments, you will find a summary of the facts in each case. The complete 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 legal fields.
7B_109/2023: Partial Approval of Complaints for Embezzlement and Fraud
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Supreme Court deals with the complaints of A.________ and B.________ against a judgment of the criminal appeals chamber of the Cantonal Court of Fribourg, which included a partial amendment of a first-instance judgment. A.________ was convicted of qualified embezzlement, commercial fraud, qualified breach of trust in management, and forgery. The disputed issues particularly concern the penalties, confiscation, and allocation of seized assets as well as the amount of a compensation claim. The context involves complex financial and investment transactions and also includes the involvement of several injured parties.
Summary of the Considerations
1. **Procedural Preliminary Questions (para. 1)**: The complaints 7B_109/2023 and 7B_110/2023 were joined due to economic procedural conduct. The submissions meet the formal requirements of the Federal Supreme Court legislation, and the complaints are admitted. 2. **Complaint of A.________ (7B_109/2023) (paras. 2–3)**: - A.________ was convicted of breach of trust management regarding the E.________ foundation. However, the Federal Supreme Court denies his position as asset manager because he was not entrusted with independent discretion. The conviction on this point is set aside. - Due to the partial success, the penalty must be newly determined; the cantonal regulations on costs and compensation must be adjusted accordingly. 3. **Complaint of B.________ (7B_110/2023) (paras. 4–6)**: - The amount of the compensation claim remains at 206,000 Swiss francs, as A.________’s financial situation does not permit higher payments and there are no indications of additional reconstructible assets. An abuse of discretion by the lower court is denied. - Regarding the reimbursement of 150,000 Swiss francs to two other injured parties (D.C.________ and C.C.________), it is decided that direct reimbursement is not permissible. The lower court must clarify whether confiscation under Art. 70 of the Swiss Criminal Code is to be carried out instead. 4. **Considerations on Confiscation and Compensation Claim (paras. 6.4–6.5)**: - The Federal Supreme Court emphasizes the necessity of a clear legal distinction between direct reimbursement and the execution of confiscation proceedings. A privileged treatment of certain injured parties is generally to be avoided. - All other submissions, including reimbursement of procedural costs, are dismissed or deemed unfounded.
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaints of the two complainants against the lower court are partially upheld. One of the convictions is set aside, and the case is remanded to the lower court for reappraisal, while other points are dismissed.
8C_239/2025: Dismissal of the Complaint against Disability Insurance
Summary of the Facts
The complainant applied for disability insurance benefits for the first time due to health problems and received vocational measures as well as a full disability pension between 2007 and 2009. After an accident in 2012, the IV office rejected her renewed application, which was challenged judicially but finally rejected in 2024. The cantonal court dismissed her complaint, whereupon the complainant applied for acknowledgment of a partial pension.
Summary of the Considerations
The complaint is formal and timely and admissible. The Federal Supreme Court examined the facts primarily based on the findings of the lower court, which did not consider the income from the complainant’s activity as a customer advisor sufficiently adjusted, whereas other commercial activities were deemed reasonable. A 25% deduction on the disability income was not justified, and even with alternative calculations, the degree of disability does not exceed the required 40%.
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the complaint and imposed the court costs on the complainant. No claim to a disability pension was recognized.
8C_117/2026: Non-admission Due to Non-compliance with Procedural Requirements
Summary of the Facts
The complainants A.________ and B.________, represented by the organization acting as a "company," filed a complaint against a decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen, which did not enter into the submission due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Summary of the Considerations
- **para. 1:** The complaint dated 9 February 2026 is directed against the non-admission by the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen of an application by the complainants. - **para. 2:** The legal form of the "company," which represents the complainants, is unclear. If it is an unregistered partnership, a written power of attorney would need to be proven, which was not sufficiently provided. - **para. 3:** Despite a request from the Federal Supreme Court (deadline 18 February 2026), the authority to represent could not be properly demonstrated. A submitted power of attorney was considered insufficient, especially due to a conflicting statement by B.________ in another proceeding. - **para. 4:** The complaint also does not meet the minimal substantive reasoning requirements (Art. 42 para. 2 BGG), as there is no sufficient engagement with the reasoning of the administrative court. This court had argued that the internal administrative appeal path must first be exhausted before judicial jurisdiction arises. - **para. 5:** Due to the manifestly deficient submissions, the complaint is not admitted in the simplified procedure according to Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b BGG. - **para. 6:** Court costs are imposed on F.________, as the signatory of the submission, because of the inadequate complaint handling.
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court has decided not to enter into the complaint and to impose court costs on the signatory of the submission.
7B_206/2024: Judgment on Unsealing Bank Documents in the Context of a Criminal Investigation Procedure
Summary of the Facts
The public prosecutor's office of the Canton of Schwyz is conducting a criminal investigation against B.________ for fraudulent bankruptcy and seizure fraud (Art. 163 Swiss Criminal Code) and had bank documents secured. After previous proceedings, A.________ S.A., the account holder of one of the affected accounts, requested sealing of the documents. The coercive measures court did not enter into this request as it was late and imposed the procedural costs on A.________ S.A.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_64/2026: Admission of the Complaint Due to Lack of Complaint Will
Summary of the Facts
B.________ filed a complaint on 25 January 2026 on behalf of A.________ against the decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen (B 2026/8) of 20 January 2026. On 27 January 2026, A.________ informed the Federal Supreme Court in writing that she did not wish to pursue the complaint and that B.________ had filed the complaint without her consent.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_546/2025: Dismissal of Complaint Regarding Unemployment Compensation
Summary of the Facts
In the present case, the complainant, a man born in 1963, applied from 1 March 2025 for the opening of a second framework period for unemployment compensation. The competent cantonal unemployment fund of the Canton of Vaud rejected this application on the grounds that the requirements of Art. 27 para. 3 AVIG and Art. 41b para. 1 ALVV were not met. The complainant unsuccessfully appealed to the cantonal court. Subsequently, he filed a complaint in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_1084/2025: Judgment on Custodial Enforcement and Consolidation of Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
A.________ is in custodial enforcement in the Canton of Bern. In 2024, he was transferred several times between different correctional facilities, leading to several complaints. These were consolidated by the cantonal security directorate, against which A.________ appealed. The security directorate and later the Bern High Court dismissed all complaints. Before the Federal Supreme Court, A.________ challenged, among other things, the consolidation of proceedings, the detention conditions, the lack of release prospects, and the rejection of his request for legal aid.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_71/2026: Complaint Against Fines Due to Violations of Cantonal Regulations
Summary of the Facts
(1) The complainant received two fines from the competent cantonal supervisory authority because he carried out activities as a construction manager and consultant without registration in the corresponding register. (2) A health-related crisis (hypoglycemia) is said to have prevented him from filing the complaint in time.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_627/2025: Judgment on Mandatory Health Insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________, who receives a Portuguese old-age pension, was exempt from Swiss health insurance obligation during his employment at the Portuguese Consulate General in Zurich. After termination of his employment, the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich granted him a permanent exemption from the insurance obligation. The Social Insurance Institution of the Canton of Zurich (SVA) appealed, requested the annulment of the lower court judgment, and established that A.________ has been subject to insurance obligation since 18 January 2025.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_565/2025: Admissibility of a Complaint Against a Procedural Order in the Simplified Procedure
Summary of the Facts
A.________ GmbH filed a claim against B.________ AG for payment of CHF 30,000.– due to personality rights violations. The District Court Hochdorf requested the plaintiff to substantiate the claim in writing and to submit evidence applications. A.________ GmbH appealed this request to the Lucerne Cantonal Court, which did not enter into the complaint with an unsubstantiated decision. The plaintiff then turned to the Federal Supreme Court and requested, among other things, an oral hearing.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7F_1/2026: Inadmissibility of the Revision Request Against Non-admission Decision
Summary of the Facts
A.________ had filed a complaint against a decision of the Canton of Schwyz Court, which the Federal Supreme Court did not enter into with judgment 7B_554/2025 of 4 September 2025 because the cost advance was not paid even within the extended deadline. On 3 January 2026, A.________ filed a revision request and applied for restoration of the deadline.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5D_28/2025: Judgment on Subsidiary Constitutional Complaint in a Civil Matter (Unjust Enrichment)
Summary of the Facts
The complainant (A.________ GmbH) asserted claims against the respondent (B.________ AG) due to unlawful use of images of a photographic model. After several decisions and a remand decision of the Zurich High Court, the lawsuit was unsuccessful.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5D_46/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint Due to Deficient Reasoning
Summary of the Facts
A.________ GmbH, active in the mediation of non-professional photographic models, claimed that B.________ AG used images beyond the agreed usage period or purposes and demanded payment of CHF 9,275.55 from it. The Bern-Mittelland Regional Court dismissed the claim, and the Bern High Court dismissed the complaint as far as it admitted it. A.________ GmbH then filed a subsidiary constitutional complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_301/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint Against the Rejection of the Request for Legal Aid
Summary of the Facts
A.________ suffered injuries in an accident in 2015, for which he was later legally represented by his then lawyer (B.________). In connection with a mandate relationship, A.________ filed a claim against B.________ in 2024, accusing him of professional misconduct leading to financial damage. He particularly claimed that the lawyer did not sufficiently inform him about possible consequences of a certain notification to the disability insurance (AI) and that a hearing letter was sent late to an opposing insurer. The request of A.________ for free legal aid was rejected at first instance due to lack of prospects of success.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_521/2025: Non-extension of Residence Permit
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a Serbian national, entered Switzerland in 2020 after being granted a residence permit for residence with his wife, who is entitled to settle in Switzerland, based on a family reunification application. The authorities refused to extend this permit after discrepancies about the actual duration of the marital community arose. The cantonal instances dismissed the legal remedies against this decision. The complainant appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_751/2024: Divorce (Child Support, Property Law)
Summary of the Facts
After the parties (A.________ and B.________) separated, marital protection measures were taken, later replaced by precautionary measures in the divorce proceedings. The divorce judgment of the Zurich District Court included specific arrangements on property law compensation payments and child support contributions. This decision was partially amended before the Zurich High Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_314/2025: Judgment on Water and Wastewater Charges of the Municipality of Leuzigen for the Billing Periods 2017-2021
Summary of the Facts
The Municipality of Leuzigen ordered on 25 January 2022 that the heirs’ community of the deceased owner of a property must pay water and wastewater charges for the billing periods 2017 to 2021 in the amount of CHF 52,728.15. The heirs argued that the charges were disproportionate and partly time-barred. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern confirmed the obligation to pay the charges with a judgment of 31 March 2025.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9D_3/2026: Inadmissibility of the Complaint Due to Deadline Miss
Summary of the Facts
The taxpayer A.________ requested remission of outstanding state and municipal taxes of the Canton of Zurich as well as direct federal tax for the tax periods 2011-2018 (CHF 6,946.30). Due to a missed deadline when filing the complaint, his requests were not admitted. Before the Federal Supreme Court, the complainant argued in particular his difficult personal life situation.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5D_17/2025: On a Subsidiary Constitutional Complaint Regarding Claims from Personality Rights Violations
Summary of the Facts
B.________ AG used images of a model that were further used after the agreed usage period expired. A.________ GmbH asserted financial claims from rights assigned by the model.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_721/2024: Dismissal of Claim for Payment of Vested Benefits
Summary of the Facts
The insured A.________, who has worked for various employers since 2013, demanded payment of vested benefits from his pension institution Previs Prévoyance, which were deposited there in connection with his divorce proceedings in 2015. After his recognition as disabled by the old-age and disability insurance and the pension institution at the end of 2019, Previs transferred the insured's retirement assets to a passive account. Previs refused payment of the requested vested benefits on the grounds that the benefit must remain secured until ordinary retirement age. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern dismissed the insured's claim. He appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_238/2026: Inadmissibility of the Complaint Against a Non-acceptance Order
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a complaint against a non-acceptance order of the public prosecutor's office of the Canton of Geneva concerning the offense of creditor harm by asset reduction (Art. 164 Swiss Criminal Code). The lower court, the criminal chamber of the Canton of Geneva, dismissed the complaint with a decision of 21 January 2026, insofar as it was to be entered into. A.________ argues that the lower court arbitrarily assessed the evidence, in particular regarding the value of certain company shares, and requested the Federal Supreme Court to review this decision.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_123/2026: Judgment on the Extension of the Residence Permit
Summary of the Facts
The Kosovar national A.________ received a residence permit after marrying a Swiss national in 2022. In December 2023, his wife informed the authorities about the factual end of the marital community and his move-out. In May 2024, A.________ was convicted in criminal proceedings. The marriage was divorced in November 2024. In 2025, both the Zurich Migration Office and the lower courts refused to extend his residence permit.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5D_34/2025: Decision on Complaint Against the Order to Substantiate a Claim in the Simplified Procedure
Summary of the Facts
The complainant (A.________) filed an unsubstantiated claim under Art. 244 CCP at the District Court Hochdorf concerning claims for personality rights violations. The District Court requested her to substantiate the claim in writing (Art. 246 para. 2 CCP). A.________ filed a complaint against this request with the Lucerne Cantonal Court, which did not enter into it. Before the Federal Supreme Court, she requested the annulment of the cantonal decision, an oral main hearing, and waiver of a new deadline for written substantiation of the claim.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5F_3/2026: Judgment on a Revision Request Against a Judgment on Estate Division
Summary of the Facts
The applicant requests revision of the Federal Supreme Court judgment 5A_690/2025, in which the Federal Supreme Court did not enter into her complaint against a judgment of the Zurich High Court. The case concerned the division of the estate of a deceased person, particularly the credit value and allocation of an agricultural parcel. The Dielsdorf District Court had dismissed the applicant's original claim with reference to the estate division as res judicata, which the applicant ultimately unsuccessfully challenged.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_143/2026: Complaint Against an Ordered Protective Custody
Summary of the Facts
The complainant was admitted for medical protective custody to Clinic B.________ on 11 November 2025. On 19 December 2025, the Child and Adult Protection Authority (KESB) of Graubünden, branch Prättigau/Davos, ordered protective custody. The complaint against this was dismissed by the Graubünden High Court. The complainant appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, requesting revocation of the protective custody and compensation of CHF 200 per day of custody. Before the Federal Supreme Court’s decision, the KESB lifted the protective custody on 26 February 2026, and the complainant was released.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5D_35/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint
Summary of the Facts
A.________ GmbH filed an unsubstantiated claim under Art. 244 CCP at the District Court Hochdorf for payment of CHF 21,883.-- concerning assigned claims from personality rights violations. At the request of the District Court, the claim was to be substantiated and necessary evidence applications submitted. A.________ GmbH filed a complaint against this request, which the Lucerne Cantonal Court treated with a non-admission decision. A.________ GmbH claimed to escalate the matter to the Federal Supreme Court, particularly to enforce an oral hearing.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_481/2025: Building Permit for the Extension of a Single-family House
Summary of the Facts
D.________ and E.________ applied for a building permit for the extension of their single-family house. Neighbors, including A.________ as well as B.B.________ and C.B.________, filed objections. The municipal council of Wollerau approved the extension with conditions. After complaints, the government council declared the building permit conditionally suspensive with further ancillary provisions. The complaints against this decision were dismissed before the administrative court. Subsequently, the neighbors filed a complaint in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_196/2026: Judgment on the Suspension of an Appeal Procedure in Marital Protection
Summary of the Facts
The complainant filed a complaint against a decision of the President of the Basel-Stadt Appellate Court, who had rejected her request for suspension of the appeal procedure in marital protection. The Appellate Court insisted on conducting the appeal hearing but left it to the complainant whether to participate. The complaint to the Federal Supreme Court was filed on 3 March 2026 after posting on 2 March 2026. A request for suspensive effect had already been rejected.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_167/2026: Non-appealability of Conditions Imposed by Social Welfare Authorities
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ appealed to the Federal Supreme Court against a judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn. The administrative court had dismissed the complaint procedure as moot because the protected interest had subsequently ceased. The dispute concerned conditions imposed by the social region Olten regarding social welfare benefits.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_394/2025: Rejection of Building Permits for the Food Stores of A.________ AG
Summary of the Facts
A.________ AG operates two food stores in Thun. Building permits were applied for both branches for the extensions of a bakery preparation room with a freezer cell. The building permits were denied both by the municipality of Thun and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern, among other reasons due to lack of zoning regulations and incompatibility with the current building law framework of the Canton of Bern. A.________ AG filed complaints against these decisions with the Federal Supreme Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5D_36/2025: Decision on Subsidiary Constitutional Complaint Related to Claims from Personality Rights Violations
Summary of the Facts
A.________ GmbH, active in the mediation of photographic models, demanded damages from B.________ AG for the unlawful use of an image. The claim for CHF 6,250.-- was dismissed at first instance. The complaint to the Valais Cantonal Court was also dismissed or not dealt with regarding a protocol correction request. A.________ GmbH then filed a subsidiary constitutional complaint to the Federal Supreme Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_740/2025: Mootness Due to Incorrect Choice of Debt Enforcement Type
Summary of the Facts
A.________ SA initiated enforcement proceedings against B.________ on 5 April 2024. After B.________’s objection was rejected, the Lugano Debt Enforcement Office issued a seizure order on 12 September 2024. Since no further seizable assets were found, a seizure protocol was created on 28 March 2025 as provisional loss certificate documentation. With a decision of the supervisory authority over debt enforcement and bankruptcy of the Canton of Ticino dated 25 August 2025, further investigations into seizable assets were ordered. Meanwhile, it was found that B.________ should have fallen under bankruptcy enforcement as the owner of a sole proprietorship in the continuation request. On 14 October 2025, the Debt Enforcement Office declared all steps taken in the seizure void, and the procedure was reversed.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_73/2026: Assessment on the Inadmissibility of a Complaint Regarding the Effect of a Suspensive Effect (Contribution Dispute in a Owners' Association)
Summary of the Facts
A member of an owners' association (A.________) refuses to pay allegedly outstanding contributions, whereupon the community of Condominio B.________ filed a claim. A.________ responded with an appeal and requested the granting of a suspensive effect. After this was rejected at first instance, he appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_558/2025: Judgment on the Non-appealability of a Procedural Order in the Simplified Procedure under CCP
Summary of the Facts
A.________ (complainant) sued for payment of CHF 30,000.-- plus interest due to cumulative claims assigned to her from personality rights violations of her photo models before the District Court Hochdorf. After filing an unsubstantiated claim, she was requested by the District Court to submit justification and evidence applications. The complaint she filed against this was declared inadmissible by the Lucerne Cantonal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_620/2025: Judgment on Real Estate Capital Gains Tax and Tax Deferral in the Canton of Bern
Summary of the Facts
A.________ sold condominium units together with her husband, one of which was held in joint ownership. The tax administration of the Canton of Bern completely rejected a requested tax deferral. This decision was partially corrected on objection and in administrative judicial review. Before the Federal Supreme Court, there was controversy over how to calculate the partial tax deferral.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_552/2025: Travel Restriction for a Child in the Context of Divorce Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The complainant (German national) and the respondent (Belarusian national) are married and parents of a common daughter. In pending divorce proceedings, the complainant applied as a precaution for a travel restriction for the daughter and the respondent. The Cantonal Court and the High Court of the Canton of Schaffhausen dismissed the respective requests.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.