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 further judgments, you will find a summary of the facts in each case. The complete 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 areas of law.
6B_199/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning defamation
Summary of the facts
A Ukrainian refugee (A.________) was finally found guilty at the cantonal level of defamation (Art. 173 Swiss Criminal Code) after allegedly making defamatory statements about an employee of the cantonal migration service in a video published on YouTube. The lower court confirmed an appellate judgment and imposed on the defendant 20 daily fines of CHF 30 with conditional execution. The complainant requested the annulment of the cantonal decision, further fact-finding, full or partial relief from financial consequences, and the granting of legal aid free of charge.
Summary of the considerations
E.1: The complaint does not meet the requirements of the reasoning obligation according to Art. 42 FCSC Act, particularly since no clear violations of federal law are alleged.
E.2: Submissions of new facts or evidence not already on file (e.g., subsequently submitted medical documents) are inadmissible under Art. 99 FCSC Act.
E.3: The complainant's general objections concerning the authenticity and technical review of the videos circulating on the internet are unsubstantiated and not comprehensible to the court.
E.4: The alleged violation of the right to be heard and qualitative defects in interpretation during the proceedings were not sufficiently substantiated.
E.5: The complainant's waiver of certain evidentiary measures, such as a psychiatric examination, was validly declared by legal representation and attributable to him.
E.6: Unspecific complaints regarding the waiver of summoned witnesses and insufficient specification of medical evidence do not meet the requirements of a legally sufficient reasoning of the complaint (Art. 106 para. 2 FCSC Act).
E.7: A general denial of the facts established by the lower court falls under inadmissible appellate criticism and is not to be examined by the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the dispositive
The complaint was declared inadmissible, the request for legal aid was rejected, and the procedural costs were imposed on the complainant.
9C_110/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding entitlement to benefits from disability insurance
Summary of the facts
The complainant, A.________, applied in 2024 to the disability insurance office of the Canton of Aargau for benefits but withdrew his application. Upon reapplication in 2025, the disability insurance office conducted medical and occupational assessments, including evaluations by the Regional Medical Service (RAD). However, it rejected the claim for disability insurance benefits (decision dated 9 October 2025). The subsequent complaint was dismissed by the Insurance Court of the Canton of Aargau by judgment of 6 January 2026.
Summary of the considerations
- **E. 1:** The Federal Supreme Court reviews ex officio the points presented to it, whereby a qualified obligation to raise complaints applies. New facts and evidence may generally not be introduced unless they directly arise from the decision of the lower court. - **E. 2:** The complainant submitted inadmissible new requests (e.g., obtaining patient records, request to the legislature), which the Federal Supreme Court does not consider. Moreover, a fact from 2025 as a genuine novelty is disregarded. - **E. 3:** The main point of dispute is whether the complainant's entitlement to benefits was rightly rejected. The Federal Supreme Court confirms the legal basis and the lower court’s reasoning. - **E. 4.1:** The lower court found that there are no sufficient health impairments to justify entitlement to benefits. The RAD doctor's control report supports this result. - **E. 4.2:** The complaint that an examination would be mandatory under the principle of investigation is rejected. This principle obliges the disability insurance office only to carry out further investigations when there is sufficient cause, which is not the case here. - **E. 4.2.1-4.2.2:** It is clarified that the lower court correctly waived further evidence in an anticipatory assessment of evidence. This is legally permissible and not an inadmissible circular argument. - **E. 4.2.3:** The complaint that a personal hearing of the complainant should have taken place is rejected. There is no general right to oral hearing, nor was it specifically requested. - **E. 4.3:** In summary, it is confirmed that the lower court did not violate federal law. The complaint is unfounded. - **E. 4.4:** The complainant’s request for expedited processing becomes moot due to the issuance of the judgment.
Summary of the dispositive
The complaint is dismissed, no court costs are charged, and the judgment is communicated accordingly.
2C_146/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding state liability claim
Summary of the facts
A.________ filed a state liability claim against the Canton of Basel-Landschaft for alleged official duty violations and demanded damages. Since he failed to pay the requested advance on costs of CHF 5,000 despite a grace period, the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft did not admit the claim. A.________ appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, alleging among other things the lack of jurisdiction of the lower court and violations of constitutional rights.
Summary of the considerations
1. Admissibility of the complaint (E. 2.1 to E. 2.2) The complaint concerns a final decision at the highest cantonal level in the area of state liability, thus the complaint in public law matters is admissible under Art. 85 para. 1 lit. a FCSC Act. 2. Scope of review and reasoning obligations (E. 2.3 to E. 2.7) - The Federal Supreme Court reviews the application of cantonal law only for arbitrariness (Art. 95 lit. c-e FCSC Act). - The complainant did not raise substantiated complaints that meet the qualified requirements under Art. 106 para. 2 FCSC Act. - The claim that the government council was competent and not the cantonal court was insufficiently reasoned. - Alleged legal violations such as incorrect handling of a recusal request, violations of the right to be heard, and misuse of a "cost barrier" were merely asserted without substantiation. 3. Conclusion (E. 3.1) The Federal Supreme Court found that the complainant did not present sufficiently reasoned arguments to demonstrate arbitrariness or unconstitutional conduct by the lower court.
Summary of the dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court decided not to admit the complaint and imposed court costs on the complainant. No party compensation was awarded.
4A_578/2025: Non-admission of the complaint regarding risk of confusion under company and fair competition law
Summary of the facts
Cable-Tec AG (complainant), registered in the commercial register since 2018, sued Kabeltec Group Schweiz AG (respondent), registered since 2022, for an alleged risk of confusion under company and fair competition law due to the similarity of the company name components "Cable-Tec" and "Kabeltec." The lower court, the Higher Court of the Canton of Graubünden, dismissed the claim as there was no risk of confusion.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_753/2025: Non-admission of the complaint regarding cancellation of disability pension
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________, a Turkish national, applied for a disability pension in 2012, which was finally granted retroactively from February 2013 by the IV office for insured persons abroad (IVSTA). In 2022, her pension was revoked based on an expert report confirming full fitness to work. The Federal Administrative Court upheld this revocation with substituted reasoning based on Art. 53 para. 2 ATSG, as the original pension grant was based on gross procedural errors. A.________ filed a complaint against this decision before the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_28/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning service of a payment order
Summary of the facts
The complainant was pursued by the Canton of Graubünden for a claim of CHF 555.--. After unsuccessful postal service, the Graubünden cantonal police handed over the payment order on November 20, 2025. The complainant filed a complaint on November 24, 2025, at the Higher Court of the Canton of Graubünden, which decided not to admit the complaint due to lack of legal interest. The subsequent complaint brought before the Federal Supreme Court concerns an alleged violation of the right to be heard due to premature drafting of the Higher Court’s judgment before the deadline for comments had expired.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_241/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning civil liability of the holder of a motor vehicle
Summary of the facts
This case concerns the civil liability of the holder of a motor vehicle. A traffic accident from 1998 led to a complex legal dispute about adequate causality and damage assessment. The injured party (B.________) suffered a so-called "whiplash injury" and psychological effects; the defendant insurer (A.________ SA) denied liability. Various medical and legal expert opinions were obtained over several years, with disputes focusing particularly on causal damages, calculation of damage items, and legal weighting of predisposing factors of the injured party.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_603/2025: Non-admission of the complaint regarding sentencing and expulsion
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.A.________, a Tunisian national, was sentenced by the Higher Court of the Canton of Thurgau to nine years and six months imprisonment, a fine, and a 15-year expulsion for multiple counts of commercial fraud and other offenses. The expulsion was registered in the Schengen Information System (SIS). He filed a complaint requesting, among other things, a reassessment including an expert opinion on his gambling addiction and the revocation of the expulsion.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_150/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning disqualification of the magistrate
Summary of the facts
A.A. and B.A. applied on November 11, 2025, for the disqualification of the magistrate of the Lausanne district, Kathleen Hack, in a child protection measure. The magistrate rejected the request by decision of November 14, 2025. The lower court, the Administrative Chamber of the Canton Vaud Court, also rejected the appeal on January 9, 2026. On February 13, 2026, the complainants filed a civil complaint and a subsidiary constitutional complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_331/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning enforcement measures
Summary of the facts
The complainant, represented by her son, requested the annulment of all enforcement measures directed against her and filed a complaint alleging "denial of justice" and "obvious abuse of rights." The cantonal supervisory authority declared the complaint and a revision request inadmissible. The present complaint challenges these decisions.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_310/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning child protection measures
Summary of the facts
In proceedings before the Justice of the Peace of the Lausanne district, an investigation was initiated regarding the restriction of parental custody of A.A.________ and B.A.________. Measures ordered included withdrawal of the right to determine the residence of their child C.A.________, maintenance of the child protection mandate, and appointment of a representative curatorship. The parents unsuccessfully appealed to the Child Protection Chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_200/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding taxation in the Canton of Ticino
Summary of the facts
A.________ filed a complaint against taxation for the tax periods 2016–2017 in the Canton of Ticino. The lower court classified this tax matter as commercial real estate trading and dismissed the complaint. A.________ appealed to the Federal Supreme Court with a submission ("complaint").
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_271/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding inadmissible complaint against a non-admission order
Summary of the facts
A.________ filed a complaint before the Federal Supreme Court against a judgment of the Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Geneva Court of Justice, which declared inadmissible his complaint against a non-admission order by the Geneva public prosecutor. The lower court found that A.________ could not claim direct affectedness by the alleged offenses, as the alleged property damage concerned the property of a third party.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_201/2025: Non-admission of the complaint regarding refusal of further benefits after severe traumatic brain injury
Summary of the facts
A.________ suffered a severe traumatic brain injury on the night of August 15 to 16, 2020, after an assault. Suva terminated insurance benefits by decision of March 24, 2023, and denied entitlement to disability pension or compensation for loss of integrity, as no further improvement of health status is expected. The complainant unsuccessfully contested this decision before the Administrative Court of the Canton of Glarus and then filed a complaint in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_221/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding opening of bankruptcy proceedings
Summary of the facts
The complainant (A.________ AG in liquidation) had appealed the opening of bankruptcy by the District Court of March to the Cantonal Court of Schwyz. The latter dismissed the appeal on February 23, 2026, and reopened the bankruptcy as of February 25, 2026. The complainant then filed a civil complaint with the Federal Supreme Court. The Federal Supreme Court set conditions in the form of an advance on costs on March 12, 2026. Although an extension until April 14, 2026, was granted, the complainant did not pay the advance on costs.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_199/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding tax assessment of the Canton of Ticino
Summary of the facts
The legal dispute concerns the cantonal tax on real estate gains in the Canton of Ticino. The lower court, the Camera di diritto tributario of the Tribunal of Appeal of the Canton of Ticino, dismissed the complainant's submission against a tax assessment for 2017 as untimely and unfounded.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_216/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding provisional attachment order
Summary of the facts
A.________ filed a complaint against a provisional attachment order issued by the Debt Enforcement Office of the Riviera-Pays-d’Enhaut district. The president of the District Court of East Vaud rejected this complaint by decision of February 4, 2026. The subsequent cantonal complaint was also rejected by the president of the supervisory authority for debt enforcement and bankruptcy proceedings of the Canton of Vaud on February 20, 2026, especially regarding the request to grant suspensive effect. A.________ filed a complaint against this decision with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_205/2025: Non-admission of the complaint regarding tax exemption and provisions of a corporation
Summary of the facts
The complainant, a corporation, performs public tasks in waste disposal and recycling. She was previously exempted from state and municipal taxes. However, in the tax periods 2015-2018, she developed additional activities such as energy production and operation of a district heating network. The cantonal tax authorities denied the conditions for tax exemption for these activities from 2015 and included certain provisions in the taxable profit. The Cantonal Court of Valais confirmed this assessment.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_24/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding compensation for official defense counsel
Summary of the facts
Attorney A.________, official defense counsel for B.________, filed an appeal against a compensation decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court. The Appeal Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court did not admit the appeal because the required appeal registration in his own name was omitted. A.________ requested the Federal Supreme Court to overturn the non-admission decision.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_81/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning social welfare benefits
Summary of the facts
A.________, a foreign national living in Switzerland since August 2022, had social welfare benefits cut by the Vaud Migrant Reception Establishment (EVAM) by decision of April 2, 2025, due to lack of proof of need. In addition, he was ordered to repay unlawfully received benefits amounting to CHF 67,336.20. The decision was confirmed after objection and complaint by the Cantonal Department for Economy, Innovation, Labor Market and Resources (DEIEP) on August 19, 2025. The complainant challenged the decision before the Administrative Court of the Canton of Vaud, where his complaint was dismissed on December 10, 2025. He then filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court on January 9, 2026.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_325/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning non-admission order
Summary of the facts
A.________ filed a complaint against the non-admission order issued by the Lausanne District Public Prosecutor on July 2, 2025. The complaint was declared inadmissible by the criminal complaint chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court on January 29, 2026. A.________ then filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Supreme Court on March 2, 2026.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_95/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning maintenance claim and parental responsibility
Summary of the facts
The parties A.________ (father) and B.________ (mother) are parents of triplets born in 2018. After their separation in September 2020, they agreed on a shared custody model with alternating two-week stays and an equal division of financial burdens regarding the children. Later, the mother, supported by the children, requested a change of arrangement. The father in turn demanded custody be transferred to him and maintenance payments from the mother. After reviewing financial circumstances, custody, and visitation arrangements, the Cantonal Court decided to award custody exclusively to the mother and set new maintenance contributions from the father.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_80/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding arbitration expert opinion
Summary of the facts
The A.________ AG (complainant) is insured for legal protection with B.________ AG (respondent). A disagreement arose about the prospects of success and the recommended approach in a dispute based on leasing and purchase contracts for two vehicles. In proceedings to resolve these differences, the respondent commissioned an arbitration expert who gave a "non-binding recommendation" to conclude a settlement. The complainant challenged the arbitration expert opinion before the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_290/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning restraining and contact order
Summary of the facts
The complainant (A.________) and the respondent (B.________) lived as co-residents with S protection status in a social apartment. Due to incidents, the complainant requested on June 30, 2025, a restraining and contact order under Art. 28b Swiss Civil Code against the respondent. After the respondent moved out of the apartment and left Switzerland, the request was dismissed by the first instance or the proceedings partially declared moot. The appeal against this was dismissed by the Higher Court of the Canton of Schaffhausen due to lack of legal interest.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9D_21/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning legal aid and advance on costs
Summary of the facts
The complainant requested the waiver of state and municipal taxes as well as direct federal tax for the 2022 tax period. The Basel-Stadt cantonal tax administration rejected the request, as did the subsequent legal remedies. Subsequently, the request for legal aid was denied by the Appellate Court, which demanded payment of an advance on costs. The failure to pay the advance led to dismissal of the proceedings. The complainant finally filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_215/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning tax decision
Summary of the facts
The complainants A.A. and B.A. challenged a decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Vaud concerning cantonal and municipal taxes as well as direct federal tax for the tax periods 2017 to 2019 and 2021. However, the complaint was filed late.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_980/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning multiple attempted intentional homicide and other crimes
Summary of the facts
A.________ was sentenced by the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau for multiple attempted intentional homicide, violation of the Narcotics Act, and breach of the Weapons Act to 15 years imprisonment. Additionally, a fine of CHF 1,500, a 12-year expulsion, and an outpatient measure under Art. 63 Swiss Criminal Code were ordered. A.________ appealed to the Federal Supreme Court requesting acquittal on several charges, sentence reduction, and waiver of expulsion.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_109/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning fine for violation of the Narcotics Act
Summary of the facts
The complainant was fined CHF 400 (substitute imprisonment: 4 days) by the Cantonal Court of Valais for possession of 18.14 grams of marijuana, in addition to confiscation and destruction of the seized narcotics. He requested the Federal Supreme Court to reduce the fine to CHF 100 or waive the penalty, arguing it was a minor case and exclusively personal consumption.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_164/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning expulsion of an offender
Summary of the facts
A complainant challenged before the Federal Supreme Court a judgment of the 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Bern Higher Court dated January 16, 2026, which sentenced him for attempted grievous bodily harm to 28 months imprisonment (partially conditional for 22 months with a probation period of 2 years) and ordered his expulsion from Switzerland for 5 years. The complainant requested annulment of the expulsion or referral to the lower court and requested legal aid free of charge and appointment of a legal counsel free of charge.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_212/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning non-admission order
Summary of the facts
The complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court against a presidential order of the Zug Higher Court, which had not admitted a complaint against a non-admission order by the Zug public prosecutor’s office.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_166/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning fraud accusation
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.A.________ filed a criminal complaint against his brother B.A.________ for fraud. The Zurich-Sihl public prosecutor decided on April 15, 2025, not to open an investigation (non-admission). After the Zurich Higher Court dismissed the complaint, the complainant appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_419/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning access to arbitration proceedings
Summary of the facts
The complainants (A.________, B.________, C.________, and D.________) asserted copyrights as co-authors of the software program FLUKA against the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). They claimed that CERN denied them access to arbitration proceedings as provided in the 2003 collaboration agreement. CERN referred to its authorship according to the statutes and personnel regulations (SRP) of the organization, which assign jurisdiction to the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (TAOIT). The lower courts dismissed the complainants’ requests.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_264/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning validity of representation of a BVI company
Summary of the facts
Disputes arose between Bank A.________ AG and B.________ Ltd., a company under BVI law, concerning the validity of the respondent’s representation and resulting contractual claims. The background was a court receivership order from the British Virgin Islands containing guidelines for managing the assets of B.________ Ltd. This order led to the appointment of I.________ as director of the respondent. The lower court, the Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich, upheld the respondent’s claim, after which the complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.