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 full summaries of all judgments are available on the Lexplorer portal. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest judgments individually tailored to your legal fields.
6B_8/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning minor fraud
Summary of the facts
The appellant filed an appeal against a judgment of the Lucerne Cantonal Court, 2nd Division, dated 2 December 2025, concerning minor fraud, arbitrary evaluation of evidence, and violation of the right to be heard.
Summary of the considerations
- **E.1:** The appeal was submitted on 23 December 2025. - **E.2:** According to Art. 62 para. 1 BGG, the appellant was obliged to pay a cost advance of CHF 800.–. - **E.3:** After expiration of the first deadline, a non-extendable grace period until 3 March 2026 was set for the appellant (Art. 62 para. 3 BGG). - **E.4:** Since the appellant had to expect postal deliveries, the orders were deemed served despite non-collection. - **E.5:** The cost advance was not paid even within the grace period. Therefore, the appeal is not admitted (Art. 108 BGG). Moreover, the appeal did not meet the reasoning requirements of Art. 42 para. 2 BGG. - **E.6:** The court costs (CHF 500.–) are imposed on the appellant (Art. 66 para. 1 BGG).
Summary of the dispositive
The court decided not to admit the appeal and imposed the court costs on the appellant.
2D_28/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning entry ban
Summary of the facts
A.________, an Italian national, filed a subsidiary constitutional complaint with the Federal Supreme Court against a letter from the judge of the I. Criminal Chamber of the Valais Cantonal Court dated 9 December 2025. In this letter, he was informed that the requested suspension or lifting of an entry ban into Switzerland did not fall within the jurisdiction of the criminal judge but was the responsibility of the Federal Administrative Court. The entry ban had most recently been extended by the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) on 10 February 2025. A.________ in particular raised an allegation of formal denial of justice.
Summary of the considerations
**E.1**: Establishment of facts and background, notably the historical development of the entry ban, which was most recently extended by the SEM until 9 February 2028. **E.4.1**: The contested letter from the criminal judge responded to A.________’s request to suspend the entry ban. The criminal judge correctly pointed out that she was not competent for such matters. **E.4.2**: The Federal Supreme Court leaves open whether the letter qualifies as an appealable order under Art. 90 BGG, as the appeal is in any event unfounded. **E.4.3**: A.________ should have appealed the SEM’s order of 10 February 2025 to the Federal Administrative Court. Therefore, the criminal judge could not establish a denial of justice. **E.5**: The appeal is dismissed insofar as it is admissible. The applications for super-provisional measures become moot due to the outcome of the procedure.
Summary of the dispositive
The appeal was dismissed and the court costs were imposed on the appellant. No party compensation was awarded.
6B_186/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning criminal assault
Summary of the facts
The Zurich High Court confirmed on 19 January 2026, with partial finality, the judgment of the Zurich District Court of 5 March 2025. Defendant 1 was punished in the second instance for assault with a fine of CHF 500.– (substitute custodial sentence of 5 days). A claim for damages by the appellant was disregarded, while CHF 100.– plus interest was awarded to him as compensation. By appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, the appellant sought the annulment of this judgment and remand to the lower court, or subsidiarily a full re-examination.
Summary of the considerations
The question of the appellant's standing to appeal remains open as the appeal is inadmissible for other reasons. According to Art. 42 para. 2 BGG, appeal grounds must clearly explain how the contested decision violates federal law. Qualified standards of complaint apply especially to violations of fundamental rights. The appellant accuses the lower court and investigative authorities of numerous procedural errors and arbitrariness but does not substantiate these allegations sufficiently. The appellant’s submissions do not meet the reasoning requirements pursuant to Art. 42 para. 2 and Art. 106 para. 2 BGG. Since the appeal is insufficiently reasoned, the Federal Supreme Court does not admit it due to lack of proper grounds. The court costs are imposed on the appellant (Art. 66 para. 1 BGG).
Summary of the dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court decided not to admit the appeal and imposed the court costs on the appellant.
6B_996/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning revision of a coercion case
Summary of the facts
The appellant was sanctioned with a final penal order for coercion, multiple misuse of a telecommunications system, multiple pornography offenses, and multiple sexual harassment offenses. Years later, he applied for revision of the penal order, claimed a violation of his right to defense, and requested reopening of the proceedings. The Zurich High Court did not admit the revision request. The appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against this decision.
Full summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
5A_280/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning recusal request in child protection proceedings
Summary of the facts
The appellant, father of a daughter born in 2019, filed a recusal request against a senior judge of the Canton of Bern, who presided over the recusal procedure against another senior judge, within the framework of a child protection proceeding. The Bern High Court rejected the request. The appellant then filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court seeking annulment of the contested decision, appointment of another judge, and granting of legal aid.
Full summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
1C_693/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning building permit for carport modification
Summary of the facts
The appellant, owner of a property in the municipality of Ursy, subsequently applied for a building permit for the adjustment of a carport under construction, whose construction deviated from the originally approved plans. The municipality refused the permit and the requested exception to the prescribed land use (IOS) citing lack of special circumstances. This decision was confirmed by the prefect and the cantonal administrative court.
Full summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
5A_696/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning post-marital maintenance
Summary of the facts
A.A.________ and B.A.________ married in 1997 and have lived apart since 2013. Three common children are now adults; another child was fathered by the husband with a new partner in 2019. The husband filed for divorce in 2018. The first-instance court in Geneva awarded, among other things, a monthly maintenance payment from the husband to the wife of CHF 800.– in November 2023. On appeal by the wife, the Geneva Cour de justice increased this payment to CHF 2,500.– per month in June 2025. A.A.________ filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting annulment of the maintenance obligation and subsidiarily remand to the lower court. During the proceedings, the parties agreed on 23 March 2026 to reduce the post-marital maintenance to CHF 2,000.– per month.
Full summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
1D_16/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning public-law employment relationships
Summary of the facts
A group of eight employees (orderlies) of a public hospital organized a "débrayage" (work stoppage) on 14 and 15 March 2024 despite instructions to report participation. This led to communications from hospital management dated 4 April 2024, which were considered warnings and filed in the personal files of those concerned. The employees unsuccessfully demanded the removal of these letters from their files. The cantonal instance partially declared their complaints inadmissible (out of time) and dismissed the rest. The appellants then filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
6B_35/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning objection against penal order and withdrawal fiction
Summary of the facts
The appellant was accused of having been convicted twice for the same facts. He argued that a penal order was not served on him and that he therefore could not file an objection or appeal. Regarding another penal order, he complained that his request for a postponement of the hearing was denied, although he had no realistic possibility to find a lawyer in time.
Full summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
1C_335/2025: Approval of the appeal concerning building project approval
Summary of the facts
L.________ SA and M.________ SA as developers planned a construction on a parcel in the canton of Geneva. The Department of Territory approved an optimized version of the construction project, which led to objections from neighbors. They alleged, among other things, violations of the Geneva building legislation (LCI/GE). After a multi-level decision at the lower instance, the matter reached the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
7B_1352/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning conflict of interest of the opposing counsel
Summary of the facts
C.________ filed a criminal complaint on 26 April 2023 against A.________, F.________, and their company E.________ SA on suspicion of embezzlement, fraud, and handling of stolen goods. Subsequently, A.________ requested to review the eligibility of opposing counsel Me B.________ due to a possible conflict of interest. This counsel had represented A.________ in an earlier civil proceeding. The cantonal court rejected the request, after which A.________ filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
7B_114/2026: Partial approval of the appeal concerning inpatient therapeutic measure
Summary of the facts
The appellant A.________ was sentenced by the Winterthur District Court in 2019 for threats, traffic offenses, and other crimes to a custodial sentence and inpatient addiction treatment under Art. 60 SCC. After the addiction treatment was discontinued due to hopelessness, the cantonal authority requested an inpatient therapeutic measure under Art. 59 SCC. This request was approved by the District Court in 2022, and an appeal against it was dismissed by the III Criminal Chamber of the Zurich High Court in 2025. The appellant then turned to the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
7B_1202/2024: Non-admission of the appeal concerning data extraction
Summary of the facts
A.________ is accused of having posted defamatory letters against B.________ in various municipalities. The responsible public prosecutor's office (Ministère public) decided, as part of an investigation, to collect personal data from A.________, which she refused citing her health condition. The proceedings were accompanied by several medical assessments indicating that data extraction was possible under specific conditions. By order of 24 April 2024, the prosecutor's office ordered this measure. A cantonal appeal against this was dismissed. A.________ appealed to the Federal Supreme Court requesting a finding of unlawfulness and annulment of the data extraction.
Full summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
9C_194/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning occupational pension
Summary of the facts
The collective foundation Vita filed a lawsuit against A.________ GmbH (in liquidation) before the Thurgau Administrative Court regarding occupational pension. After the opening of bankruptcy and the final recognition of the claim by the bankruptcy office, the case was dismissed by the Administrative Court for lack of subject matter. A.________ GmbH filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court requesting, among other things, remand to the Administrative Court.
Full summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
5A_307/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning the opening of bankruptcy
Summary of the facts
The Appenzell Ausserrhoden Cantonal Court opened bankruptcy over A.________ AG in liquidation on 6 January 2026. The High Court later rejected a request by the appellant for suspensive effect as the appeal period had expired unused. The appellant then filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court requesting annulment of the dismissal order, determination of the substantive admissibility of her request, restoration of the deadline, and suspensive effect.
Full summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
5A_629/2023: Non-admission of the appeal concerning right of way by necessity pursuant to Art. 694 CC
Summary of the facts
A.A. and B.A., owners of plot no. sss in the agricultural zone without access to a public road, applied to the court for the granting of a right of way by necessity over neighboring properties. After their lawsuit and subsequent legal remedies were rejected, they appealed to the Federal Supreme Court. The lower courts had assessed the examination of a right of way by necessity under cantonal law as primary and therefore rejected a civil claim under Art. 694 CC.
Full summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
5A_302/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning revision of a divorce judgment
Summary of the facts
The appellant applied to the district court for revision of the divorce judgment regarding pension equalization due to newly discovered facts and requested a recalculation of the division of the vested benefits. The district court did not admit the revision request. The Schwyz Cantonal Court confirmed this decision and also did not admit the appeal. The appellant appealed to the Federal Supreme Court requesting annulment of the cantonal court decision and remand for re-examination.
Full summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
6B_7/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning assault and deprivation of property
Summary of the facts
The Federal Supreme Court dealt with an appeal by A.________ against a judgment of the Valais Cantonal Court, I. Criminal Division, concerning multiple assaults and deprivation of property. The appellant had not paid a cost advance and did not personally receive the payment orders. Furthermore, his submission did not meet the reasoning requirements.
Full summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
9C_193/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning the lawsuit against A.________ GmbH
Summary of the facts
The Personnel Pension Fund of Doctors and Veterinarians (PAT-BVG) filed a lawsuit against A.________ GmbH before the Thurgau Administrative Court. During the proceedings, bankruptcy was opened over A.________ GmbH, and the proceedings were suspended until the finality of the ranking plan. After notification by the bankruptcy office that the claim was recognized with finality and the proceedings were moot, the Administrative Court presidency dismissed the lawsuit. The appellant filed an appeal in public law and requested annulment of the decision and remand for new assessment.
Full summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
1C_179/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning extradition to Romania
Summary of the facts
A.________ was wanted by the Romanian judiciary for crimes (bodily injury, acts of violence, deprivation of liberty, and sexual assault) allegedly committed on 28 July 2025. The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) approved extradition to Romania on 16 December 2025, on condition that guarantees, including concerning detention conditions, are respected. The appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Appeal Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court on 18 March 2026. A.________ appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
1C_221/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning early retirement
Summary of the facts
The appellant, an employee of the Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM), applied for early retirement as part of a restructuring. OFCOM rejected the application as it had offered alternative positions, which were refused by the appellant. The Federal Administrative Court (TAF) deemed OFCOM’s approach lawful and dismissed the appellant’s request but upheld her claim of denial of justice.
Full summary of the judgment is available on the portal.