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 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.
9C_443/2025: Judgment on the tax deductibility of dismantling and rebuilding costs of a conservatory
Summary of the Facts
The spouses A.A.________ and B.A.________ completely dismantled the conservatory of their single-family house in the years 2021-2022 and built a new conservatory. The incurred costs of CHF 49,047 were declared as property maintenance costs in the 2021 tax return. The tax administration of the canton of Thurgau granted only the standard deductions and rejected the objection of the taxpayers. The Administrative Court of the canton of Thurgau later decided that a proportional allocation of the works into maintenance and value-enhancing expenses was necessary and referred the matter back to the tax administration for supplementation of the facts and re-assessment.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examines the admissibility of the complaint (Art. 93 para. 1 lit. a BGG) and affirms it, since the referral decision could cause an irreparable disadvantage for the tax administration. The complaint was filed in due form and time. The dispute concerns whether the costs for dismantling and rebuilding the conservatory are partially tax-deductible as maintenance costs. The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the applicable case law on the deductibility of property costs, distinguishing between maintenance (deductible) and value-enhancing (non-deductible) expenses. The dismantling and rebuilding of the conservatory involves both maintenance and value-enhancing works. The conservatory is not an independent structure but a building component (annex) used exclusively in connection with the main building. Analogous to previous judgments, the Federal Supreme Court concludes that a differentiation of expenses (maintenance or value-enhancing) is necessary. The Administrative Court rightly ordered a referral for supplementation of the facts. The considerations regarding direct federal tax also apply to the cantonal and municipal taxes of the canton of Thurgau, as the harmonized tax law is analogously applicable.
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaint regarding direct federal tax as well as cantonal and municipal taxes was dismissed, and the costs were imposed on the complainant. The compensation for the respondents was also regulated.
7F_13/2026: Inadmissibility of the Revision of a Federal Supreme Court Judgment
Summary of the Facts
On January 6, 2026, the Federal Supreme Court declared a complaint filed by A.________ against a decision of the Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court dated October 7, 2025, inadmissible (Judgment 7B_1205/2025). By submission of February 18, 2026, A.________ requested revision of this Federal Supreme Court judgment, arguing that relevant facts had been overlooked.
Summary of the Considerations
According to Art. 61 BGG, Federal Supreme Court judgments become final upon issuance and cannot generally be challenged by an ordinary remedy. Revision is possible in exceptional cases pursuant to Art. 121–123 BGG, for example if essential documents were inadvertently disregarded (Art. 121 lit. d BGG). The applicant for revision argued that the Federal Supreme Court wrongly disregarded relevant facts from the cantonal proceedings that could have established his standing to complain. The Federal Supreme Court explained that it is not the court's task to search the cantonal files to subsequently justify the applicant’s standing. Furthermore, the applicant's approach does not meet the requirements for sufficient reasoning under Art. 42 BGG. The applicant further alleged that the Federal Supreme Court wrongly assumed that he had not exhausted the cantonal appeals. This allegation was unfounded because the applicant did not submit the necessary motions before the cantonal instance and no enforceable claim was recognizable. The arguments presented did not constitute an admissible revision request, as no documents or essential facts had been overlooked.
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the revision request and imposed court costs of CHF 3,000 on the applicant. The judgment was communicated in writing to the parties concerned.
9C_134/2026: Inadmissibility of the Complaint Regarding the Tax Qualification of Income from the Sale of Condominium Shares
Summary of the Facts
The taxpayer A.________, residing in the canton of Lucerne, generated income in 2020 from the sale of condominiums and parking spaces in condominium shares in W.________/VS. The tax administration of the canton of Valais allocated this income and the associated assets to business assets and subjected them to taxation as income from self-employment. The lower courts, including the Valais Cantonal Court, confirmed this tax assessment. The taxpayer appealed the decision of the Cantonal Court to the Federal Supreme Court and requested a reassessment without attributing the income to self-employment.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court found that the lower courts had qualified the taxpayer as self-employed because he was systematically involved throughout various phases of the construction project and met the requirements of a property dealer. Reference is made to the requirements of Art. 42 BGG, which imposes a qualified obligation to provide reasons for complaints, especially for allegations of federal law violations. The taxpayer did not meet these requirements in any way. The taxpayer’s complaint was summarily analyzed: it contained only appellate criticism, personal assertions, and no substantiated legal argumentation. Therefore, the Federal Supreme Court did not enter into the complaint. The decision was made in simplified procedure.
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court did not enter into the complaint and imposed court costs on the complainant.
9C_442/2025: Judgment Regarding Tax Deductibility of Roof Renovation Costs
Summary of the Facts
The spouses A.A.________ and B.A.________ completely renovated the attic of their single-family house in 2018, raised the knee wall, changed the roof pitch, and installed a photovoltaic system. The tax administration of the canton of Thurgau rejected the tax deduction of CHF 70,000 for these measures on the grounds that these costs were value-enhancing since this category of work must be qualified as a "replacement new build." The tax appeal commission confirmed the assessment. However, the Administrative Court of the canton of Thurgau imposed on the tax administration a proportional allocation between maintenance and value-enhancing parts and referred the matter back for a new assessment.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_202/2026: Inadmissibility of the Complaint in a Property Dispute
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ requested protective measures in the context of a property dispute, which were ordered in his favor by the first instance court (Pretore of the Lugano district). However, the lower court (1st Civil Chamber of the Appeals Court of the canton of Ticino) revoked these measures. The complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court and requested their reinstatement or referral for a new decision.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_280/2024: Attempted Endangerment of Life
Summary of the Facts
A.A.________ was sentenced by the district court of Rorschach for attempted endangerment of the life of his daughter B.A.________ to a conditional prison sentence of two years and a seven-year expulsion from Switzerland (including SIS listing). The Cantonal Court of St. Gallen confirmed this judgment in all respects. The complainant requested a complete annulment of the judgment before the Federal Supreme Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_1263/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a complaint against the decision of non-admission dated July 11, 2025, issued by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Lausanne district. The lower court, the Criminal Complaint Chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court, declared the complaint inadmissible on October 7, 2025, because A.________ had not submitted the advance payment of costs within the deadline.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_138/2026: Inadmissibility of a Complaint Regarding Labour Law Matters and Legal Aid
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ had received legal aid in the canton of Geneva in the context of a labour dispute but was obliged to reimburse CHF 28,000 (E.1). Her attempt to complain about this decision was declared inadmissible by the lower court due to late submission (E.1). An alleged complaint submission to the Federal Supreme Court was not proven (E.2).
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_76/2026: Dismissal of the Complaint
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Supreme Court deals with the complaint of A.________ against a judgment of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Valais Cantonal Court of December 9, 2025. A.________ was sentenced to 42 months imprisonment for sexual acts with children and sexual coercion. Additionally, he was prohibited from working as a social pedagogue or in comparable activities with regular contact with minors for five years. The lower court also regulated the court costs, compensation claims, and civil law claims. A.________ requested acquittal, rejection of civil claims, and compensation for unjustified detention.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_460/2025: Multiple Offenses against the Narcotics Act, Obstruction of Official Acts and Covert Investigation
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was found guilty by the Zurich High Court on March 7, 2025, of multiple offenses against the Narcotics Act and obstruction of official acts. The accused possessed and sold cocaine for sale and carried narcotics for personal use. He also evaded police official acts. The lower court based its decision, among other things, on the results of a covert investigation and a house search. A.________ requests the Federal Supreme Court to declare this evidence inadmissible and to reassess the case.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_499/2025: Decision Regarding the Municipal Antenna Site Plan
Summary of the Facts
The municipal council of Balerna amended the zoning plan on June 21, 2021, to regulate mobile phone antenna sites, in particular by introducing a priority model (Art. 27bis NAPR). The telephone operators Sunrise, Salt, and Swisscom challenged these changes concerning the third priority level and specific further regulations, most recently before the Federal Supreme Court. They invoked violations of property rights, economic freedom, freedom of information, and the primacy of federal law.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_593/2025: Decision Regarding Disability Insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________ (born 1968) reapplied for disability insurance benefits in 2020 after a previous request in 2017 was rejected. The Office of Disability Insurance for Insured Persons Living Abroad (OAIE) subsequently granted him a disability pension of 53% of a full pension starting June 2023. A.________ requested a full pension but was dismissed by the Federal Administrative Court. He then filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_34/2026: Inadmissibility of the Complaint
Summary of the Facts
A complaint submitted on January 20, 2026, by A.________ SA against a non-admission decision issued by the Civil Chamber of the Cour de justice of the canton of Geneva on January 8, 2026, was declared inadmissible by the Federal Supreme Court. The background was the insolvency of B.________ SA, which had since changed its name to A.________ SA. A key point of dispute was the non-payment of the required advance on costs.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_675/2025: Judgment on Speeding and Violation of the Acceleration Requirement
Summary of the Facts
On November 17, 2022, A.________ exceeded the urban speed limit of 50 km/h by 27 km/h after tolerance deduction. Additionally, he was transporting an unsecured child under 12 years old in the car. After a penal order and a first-instance conviction, A.________ appealed, limiting himself to the gross traffic violation, the sanction, and the cost allocation. The High Court of the canton of Solothurn confirmed the conviction.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_120/2025: Obligations to Determine Hypothetical Income in Child Support
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and B.________ are the unmarried parents of a child born in 2012. After separation in 2020, parental custody was shared between both parents, custody was assigned to the mother, and a visitation right was granted to the father. The district court imposed a maintenance obligation on the father. The support contributions were adjusted during the proceedings. A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court against a decision of the lower court based on the determination of hypothetical income by the courts.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_128/2026: Inadmissibility of the Complaint
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, a British national, held an EU/EFTA residence permit for education without employment in the canton of Geneva since 2016, which she renewed annually. In March 2025, the cantonal population service of the canton of Vaud refused further renewal of her permit due to lack of proof of employment or sufficient financial means. The complainant filed a late objection against this decision, which was declared inadmissible. The Administrative Court of the canton of Vaud confirmed this decision.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_137/2026: Expulsion of an Austrian Citizen
Summary of the Facts
A.________, an Austrian citizen, was expelled from Switzerland by the municipality of Bern by decision dated September 3, 2025, pursuant to Art. 64 para. 1 lit. a and b AIG. This was confirmed by the Security Directorate of the canton of Bern and later by the Administrative Court of the canton of Bern. By complaint to the Federal Supreme Court, A.________ requested recognition of a residence right under the Free Movement Agreement (FZA) as well as the determination of a pending asylum procedure.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_1187/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint
Summary of the Facts
A.________ suffered an accident on May 31, 2018, when she stepped on a loosely fitted metal grid cover on her way to school, which gave way under her weight. This led to a fall into the ventilation shaft opening below and injuries to the facial area. Her mother filed a complaint for negligent bodily injury on June 13, 2018. The proceedings were terminated by a dismissal order of the public prosecutor of the canton of Geneva, which was confirmed by the lower court (Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Cour de justice Geneva).
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_134/2026: Non-admission of a Late Objection Against a Penal Order
Summary of the Facts
The complainant was convicted by penal order of the public prosecutor of the canton of Solothurn dated September 24, 2025, for embezzlement and multiple handovers of a motor vehicle to a driver without the required license and was punished with a conditional fine of 60 daily rates (CHF 120 each, total CHF 7,200). The objection period expired unused on October 13, 2025, yet the complainant filed an objection on October 20, 2025, simultaneously requesting reinstatement of the deadline. The first instance declared the objection late, which was confirmed by the lower court (High Court of the canton of Solothurn).
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_268/2025: Dismissal of the Complaint
Summary of the Facts
The complainant (born 1970) had previously been entitled to a full disability pension for a limited period (April 1 to June 30, 2020). After a renewed pension application in June 2021, the responsible cantonal disability insurance office (Office de l’assurance-invalidité des Kantons Freiburg) conducted several medical expertises and rejected the claim for a further pension by decision dated October 24, 2023. The complainant appealed to the Cantonal Court of Fribourg, which dismissed the appeal on March 27, 2025. Subsequently, he requested the Federal Supreme Court to annul the decision and recognize a pension entitlement or to re-examine his psychiatric impairments.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_443/2025: Regulation of Locations for Mobile Phone Antennas in Arbedo-Castione
Summary of the Facts
The procedure concerned a planning regulation in the municipal area of Arbedo-Castione regarding locations and prioritization for mobile phone antennas. The planning regulation was challenged by the mobile network operators Sunrise, Salt, and Swisscom before the Federal Supreme Court. They alleged violations of economic freedom, property guarantees, freedom of information, and the primacy of federal law, especially concerning the prioritization of zones for mobile phone antenna locations (Art. 15bis NAPR).
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_1000/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint Due to Non-payment of Court Cost Advance
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed on December 18, 2025, a criminal complaint against a decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court dated November 5, 2025. The complaint was directed against the formal inadmissibility of an opposition to a penal order because of the party's absence at a hearing.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_45/2026: Dismissal of the Complaint Against Administrative Detention
Summary of the Facts
A.________, an Ethiopian national, was repeatedly convicted criminally and was to be expelled from Switzerland. Despite his cooperation with Swiss authorities, the procedure for enforcing the expulsion was delayed by various factors, including changing statements about his nationality (Ethiopia/Eritrea) and health problems. His complaints against the repeated extensions of administrative detention were dismissed by the cantonal instances.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_165/2026: Inadmissibility of Deductions for Maintenance Costs in the 2018 Tax Period
Summary of the Facts
A taxpayer residing in the canton of Thurgau declared maintenance costs for minor children living with the divorced mother abroad in the 2018 tax return. The Thurgau tax administration recognized only part of the claimed deductions and considered the costs of children's flights and attorney fees as non-deductible. The taxpayer challenged the decision through all cantonal instances and filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_1099/2025: Discontinuation of Criminal Proceedings and Suspension of Appeal Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a criminal complaint against four Zurich city police officers for an incident on October 29, 2022, during which he allegedly suffered injuries during an arrest. The Zurich-Sihl public prosecutor discontinued the criminal investigation, which was confirmed by the Zurich High Court. Additionally, A.________ appealed a conviction by the Zurich District Court, which found him guilty of violence and threats against officials for the same incident. A.________ requested suspension of the appeal proceedings until the conclusion of the proceedings against the police officers, which were, however, discontinued.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_240/2026: Inadmissibility of the Request for Suspensive Effect
Summary of the Facts
An applicant (A.________) requested precautionary measures to prohibit the respondents (B.________ SA, C.________, D.________) from publishing information about him that alleged inappropriate behavior towards women. These protective measures were rejected by the president of the civil court of the district of La Côte, and this decision was confirmed by the single judge of the civil chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court on March 9, 2026. The applicant then filed a request for suspensive effect regarding the cantonal decision.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_528/2025: Judgment Regarding Release from Attorney-Client Privilege
Summary of the Facts
Attorney B.________ requested the Supervisory Commission for Attorneys of the canton of Zurich to be released from attorney-client privilege in order to enforce his fee claims against A.________. The Supervisory Commission approved this, after which A.________ filed a complaint with the Administrative Court of the canton of Zurich, which was dismissed. A.________ then filed a complaint in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_755/2025: Judgment on Repayment of Supplementary Benefits and Late Objection
Summary of the Facts
A.________ registered in 2019 as a recipient of supplementary benefits with the SVA Aargau. Later, he and his wife purchased a property. Due to a reporting obligation violation and a reassessment of benefit entitlements, the SVA Aargau demanded repayments totaling CHF 79,212 by two decisions. A.________’s objection against the decisions was submitted late on November 25, 2024. The Insurance Court of the canton of Aargau dismissed A.________’s complaint.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_895/2025: Inadmissibility of the Appeal Against a Judgment of the Geneva Police Court
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted on October 29, 2024, by the Geneva Police Court for unlawful claiming of social insurance or welfare benefits (Art. 148a para. 1 SCC) to a fine of 120 daily rates (CHF 30 each, probation for three years). The appeal against this judgment was declared inadmissible by the Geneva Appeal and Revision Chamber of the Criminal Court on September 15, 2025, because the appeal declaration did not contain sufficient motions. A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_255/2026: Decision on Suspensive Effect in Connection with a Seizure Enforcement
Summary of the Facts
The complainant filed a complaint against the announcement of a seizure enforcement and requested suspensive effect. The Zug Cantonal Court (II. Complaints Division), as supervisory authority over debt enforcement and bankruptcy, rejected the request for suspensive effect on March 11, 2026. The seizure enforcement took place on March 12, 2026, apparently in the absence of the complainant. The complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court against the rejection of the request for suspensive effect.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_359/2025: Inadmissibility of the Complaint Due to Lack of Current and Practical Interest
Summary of the Facts
The case concerned the withdrawal of authorizations of an expert auditor and an auditor in the field of financial market laws by the supervisory authority. After multiple reviews of the decisions by several instances, the duration of the withdrawal was disputed.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_64/2026: Federal Supreme Court Judgment on Expulsion and Serious Offenses Against the Narcotics Act
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, a Portuguese national, was sentenced by the Tribunal correctionnel de Genève on May 8, 2024, for serious violations of the Narcotics Act (Art. 19 para. 1 lit. b, c and d, para. 2 lit. a BetmG) and money laundering (Art. 305bis No. 1 SCC) to a prison sentence of 36 months, of which six months were unconditional. Furthermore, expulsion from Switzerland for five years was ordered. The Cour de justice de Genève largely confirmed the judgment in second instance on November 28, 2025, and slightly adjusted the prison sentence.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_56/2026: Judgment on Sentencing, Expulsion, and SIS Listing
Summary of the Facts
The Bern High Court sentenced the complainant, among other things, for multiple extortions, attempted coercion, commercial theft and fraud, property damage, and other offenses to a prison sentence of 44 months and a fine of 10 daily rates. In addition, an expulsion for seven years with listing in the Schengen Information System (SIS) was ordered. The complainant specifically challenged the sentencing and expulsion and requested their repeal or at least reduction.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_436/2024: Planned Construction of a Photovoltaic System in a Protected Area
Summary of the Facts
A.A. and B.A. applied for a building permit for a photovoltaic system on the roof of a building located within the protection perimeter of a protected village image in the municipality of Mont-Vully. The application was rejected by the municipal administration and later by the cantonal authority. The reasons were the inadequate consideration of architectural regulations as well as the aesthetics and protection-worthiness of the site. The Federal Supreme Court was called upon by a complaint in public law to overturn the previous cantonal decisions.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.