Latest Judgments of the Federal Court
Here you will find the most recent judgments of the Federal Court (BGer) from bger.ch. For the first three judgments, we present detailed summaries with facts, considerations, and dispositives. For the further judgments, you will find a summary of the facts for 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 tailored individually to your legal areas.
2C_85/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning residence permit due to a post-marital hardship case
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, a Philippine national, married his Swiss partner in Switzerland after a long-term relationship in the Philippines. A few days after the marriage, the spouse passed away. The appellant’s application for a residence permit was rejected. The lower courts denied the existence of a post-marital hardship case and pointed out with finality the short duration of the marital community of only four days.
Summary of the Considerations
The appellant invokes a post-marital hardship case pursuant to Art. 50 para. 1 lit. b AIG, arguing that the death of his spouse constitutes an exception. He requests the annulment of the rejecting judgment of the lower court. The Federal Court has jurisdiction due to the circumstances of the case; the substantive legal requirements are met. The appeal in public law matters is basically admissible. On the merits, the Federal Court recognizes that the lower court correctly examined the conditions for a post-marital hardship case under Art. 50 para. 1 lit. b AIG. In particular, the short duration of the marriage, which lasted only four days, was decisive. According to Federal Court case law, a very short marriage duration as in the present case regularly does not suffice, even if no abusive intentions exist. The appellant’s integration in Switzerland as well as the arguments regarding his financial security and social ties in his home country were reviewed and correctly denied. No violation of the law occurred. The judgment of the lower court was therefore lawful.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal was dismissed and the court costs were imposed on the appellant. No party compensations were awarded.
7B_1375/2024: Non-admission of the appeal concerning endangerment of life and trespass
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was accused of having entered the apartment of the neighbor B.________ on July 27, 2021, and having endangered him by strangulation until unconsciousness. In the first instance he was convicted of endangering life, trespass, and threat. The Court of Appeal partially acquitted him but upheld the convictions for endangering life and trespass and increased the prison sentence to 30 months. Additionally, an eight-year expulsion from the country was imposed.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Court admitted the appeal. The lower court refused further evidence gathering (such as a credibility assessment) because the statements of the injured party were sufficiently coherent, and the appellant’s statements appeared contradictory and not credible. The limitations due to consumption or psychological illnesses of the injured party were not sufficiently proven. The lower court assessed the statements, injuries, and other evidence without arbitrariness. It was established that the appellant endangered the injured party’s life by strangulation. The lower court appropriately determined the prison sentence according to the provisions of Art. 47 SCC. Considering death threats during the strangulation was permissible. The violation of the acceleration requirement (eleven months for judgment reasoning) does not justify a sentence reduction but must be noted. The expulsion is admissible as no serious personal hardship (Art. 66a para. 2 SCC) exists. The appellant is weakly integrated and can adapt to the expulsion considering his health situation in Turkey.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal is partially upheld with respect to the finding of the violation of the acceleration requirement; the other requests are dismissed and the Canton of Zurich is ordered to pay party compensation.
6B_715/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning defamation and false accusation
Summary of the Facts
A., the appellant, filed an appeal against a judgment of the Cour d'appel pénale of the Tribunal cantonal of the Canton of Vaud, which confirmed the first-instance judgment. B. was acquitted of the charges of false accusation and defamation as the lower court considered her statements made in good faith.
Summary of the Considerations
The request for the recusal of the president of the judicial panel was insufficiently substantiated and therefore declared inadmissible. Furthermore, the concerned president had already left her position at the end of 2025. According to Art. 42 para. 1 BGG, legal requests and grounds must be specified. The appellant’s submissions did not meet the legal requirements. Discussions regarding previous judgments, lawsuits, or proceedings clearly fell outside the subject-matter of the present appeal and were declared inadmissible. The appellant alleged a violation of his right to be heard. However, the Federal Court found no violations of law by the lower court. The appeal argued against the lower court’s finding of the good-faith statements of the intimated party (B.). The Federal Court rejected this point as the lower court correctly applied the evidence and legal norms. The appeal did not fully meet procedural requirements and was substantively dismissed as unfounded.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal was dismissed, and legal aid was refused. The appellant was also ordered to pay court costs.
6B_600/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning inadmissible statement of appeal
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Court was to review the decision of the Chambre pénale d’appel et de révision of the Cour de justice of the Canton of Geneva dated May 26, 2025. This had declared the appeal of A.________ against a judgment of the Tribunal de police of the Canton of Geneva dated January 28, 2025 inadmissible because the statement of appeal did not meet the requirements of Art. 399 para. 3 CPP. A.________ was convicted, among other things, of various offenses such as assault, simple bodily harm, theft, and unlawful appropriation. The lower court rejected a supplementary deadline claim to clarify the statement of appeal.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
6B_159/2026: Federal Court judgment on the inadmissibility of two appeals related to sexual offenses
Summary of the Facts
In the judgment of January 21, 2026, the Chambre pénale d'appel et de révision of the Cour de justice genevoise partially acquitted the accused C.________ and convicted him on other counts. C.________ was convicted, among other things, of sexual acts with children and against a person incapable of consent and received a prison sentence of four years and eight months. A.A.________ and B.A.________, both appellants, filed appeals against this judgment concerning the conviction and civil claims.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
6B_99/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning traffic rule violation
Summary of the Facts
The appellant was convicted by the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Zurich on November 5, 2025, on appeal for gross and simple traffic rule violations (maintaining distance) as well as for a simple traffic rule violation (failure to signal). He challenged before the Federal Court in particular the assessment of evidence by the lower court as well as the admissibility of video recordings and an expert report.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
9C_210/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning denial of justice in the tax area
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed an appeal against a judgment of the Cantonal Tax Court Solothurn dated February 16, 2026, which dealt with a denial of justice complaint related to tax arrears for the tax years 2022 and 2023. The lower court dismissed the denial of justice complaint as unfounded.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_197/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning state liability and legal aid
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed a claim of 100 million CHF against the Canton of Thurgau for state liability. In connection with the expropriation of a property from the 1990s, he also requested a partial payment of 10% and applied for legal aid. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Thurgau initially rejected his application for legal aid and later did not enter on his lawsuit and the reconsideration request concerning the interim decision. The appellant filed an appeal against this to the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_328/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning release from custody
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted by the court of the Canton of Geneva on October 17, 2025, among other things for endangering the lives of others, kidnapping minors, and several other offenses, to a prison sentence of 5 years and 6 months as well as various fines and outpatient treatment. Even before the conviction, A.________ was held in various forms of custody due to a risk of relapse and flight risk. After renewed requests for release combined with proposals for substitute measures, the cantonal authority rejected these and considered continued detention justified. A.________ lodged an appeal with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_1271/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning reopening of a preliminary procedure
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed an appeal against an order of the public prosecutor’s office of the Canton of Geneva which refused to reopen a preliminary procedure. This appeal was dismissed by the appeals chamber of the Geneva Cantonal Court. A.________ then filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Court.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2G_1/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning correction request
Summary of the Facts
Attorney A.________ had not received compensation for his own expenses in the context of a disciplinary procedure, which was challenged before the cantonal court of Zug after his appeal was dismissed. The Federal Court dismissed the appeal in public law matters against the judgment of the cantonal court. A.________ then submitted a correction request to rectify two factual statements in the Federal Court’s judgment dated December 17, 2025.
Complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.