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.
2D_20/2025: Non-admission of the appeal regarding the award for winter road maintenance
Summary of the Facts
The procedure concerns the awarding of the public contract for winter road maintenance (snow clearing) on the cantonal roads of the Canton of Ticino for the winter periods 2025–2030. The consortium A.________ was initially designated by the contracting authority in June 2025 as the successful bidder for lot E16. After a complaint by consortium E.________, the Administrative Court of the Canton of Ticino on 1 October 2025 annulled the award to A.________ and excluded it from the tender because the submitted bids were incomplete.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examines sua sponte its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the appeal (Art. 29 para. 1 BGG). The requirements for an appeal in public law matters under Art. 83 lit. f BGG are not met. Therefore, the submission is treated as a subsidiary constitutional complaint. Consortium A.________ alleges arbitrariness (Art. 9 BV) in connection with its exclusion decision and the interpretation of procedural rules. However, the reasoning of the lower court regarding the incompleteness of the submitted documents is supported. The cantonal lower court lawfully argued that the evidence not provided by A.________ (ownership, type, dimensions and year of manufacture of the snow plows) was mandatory according to the tender requirements. No further exception could be demonstrated. The contracting authority's tolerance of the consortium's deadline overrun and incomplete evidence violates in particular Art. 42 of the Regulation on Public Procurement (RLCPubb/CIAP). The lower court's intervention to enforce this provision was justified and did not constitute an inadmissible interference with the contracting authority's discretion.
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and imposed the court costs on the appellants as well as party compensation to the respondents.
8C_243/2026: Non-admission of the appeal regarding entitlement to unemployment benefits
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, appealed against a decision of the Insurance Tribunal of the Canton of Ticino dated 16 February 2026, which apparently concerned entitlement to unemployment benefits. Despite a request from the Federal Supreme Court, she failed to submit the contested decision and properly justify her appeal brief.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1:** According to Art. 42 para. 3 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (BGG), an appeal is inadmissible if the contested decision is not submitted. Despite the request (Art. 42 para. 5 BGG), the appellant did not submit the missing decision. - **E.2:** Furthermore, the appeal does not meet the reasoning requirements of Art. 42 para. 2 and 106 para. 2 BGG, as neither a violation of federal law (Art. 95-96 BGG) nor arbitrary findings of fact (Art. 97 para. 1 BGG and Art. 9 BV) were demonstrated. - **E.3:** The appeal is therefore obviously inadmissible and is decided in simplified procedure pursuant to Art. 108 para. 1 lit. a and b BGG. - **E.4:** Exceptionally, no court costs are imposed (Art. 66 para. 1 sentence 2 BGG).
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal was declared inadmissible, no court costs were imposed, and the notification was made to the relevant parties and authorities.
8C_261/2025: Non-admission of the appeal regarding disability insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________ registered with the disability insurance in 2019 after a long professional activity due to psychological impairments, which led to a negative benefit decision. After reapplication in 2021 and a renewed review by the IV office of the Canton of Zurich including new medical expert opinions, entitlement to benefits was again denied. The Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich confirmed this decision. A.________ subsequently appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court reviews violations of federal law and the findings of fact of the lower court only in certain cases and with limited cognition. A spurious novelty, the report of the E.________ clinic, is rejected as it was not submitted according to usual procedural rules. An MRI report from the case files is considered. It must be examined whether the lower court rightly confirmed the decision of the disability insurance office. The legally relevant bases for pension revision and the standards for expert opinions are set out and considered correctly reproduced. The temporal comparison bases are the decisions from 2020 and 2024. The lower court held that there was no revision-relevant change since the findings compared to the first application had essentially not changed. This legal assessment is based on medical findings by BEGAZ and earlier expert opinions. The Federal Supreme Court finds that the findings on the health status between 2019 and 2024 have significantly worsened. The lower court wrongly denied the relevant change and thus the ground for revision. The lower court conducted an incomplete examination of entitlement. Further investigations are required, especially regarding the medical consistency of the expert opinions. Remand for re-examination is ordered, whereby the lower court must take into account in detail the case law on indicators for mental illnesses.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal is partially upheld. The lower court judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded for further investigation. The court costs are to be borne by the disability insurance office, which must also provide compensation.
2C_403/2024: Non-admission of the appeal regarding CE marking of AirTags
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ AG markets AirTags of B.________ Ltd., which serve for localization via Bluetooth. A control by BAKOM found that the CE mark was not visibly affixed on the product but in the battery compartment. According to Swiss regulations and EU law, this mark is not easily accessible or clearly visible. BAKOM prohibited further distribution without proper marking and issued a reconsideration order requiring adjustment for future imports. A.________ AG challenged the order as well as the cost and compensation regulations before the Federal Administrative Court and ultimately before the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_375/2026: Non-admission of the appeal regarding a recusal request
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court after the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Lucerne rejected a recusal request against the public prosecutor Medina Kurtovic-Velic. The public prosecutor had suspended criminal proceedings against A.________.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_704/2024: Non-admission of the appeal regarding sentencing and deportation
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ was convicted by the Criminal Court of Lucerne in 2022 for multiple violations of the Narcotics Act (including serious cases), fraudulent misuse of a data processing system, money laundering and qualified violations of the Foreign Nationals and Integration Act. She was sentenced to a partially conditional prison sentence, accompanied by a fine and deportation order. The Cantonal Court of Lucerne confirmed most of the convictions but reduced the prison sentence due to procedural delay. A.________ appealed this decision to the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_107/2026: Non-admission of the appeal regarding disability insurance
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, resident in Switzerland since 1994 and not employed, had claimed benefits from the IV office of the Canton of Zurich in 2005 and 2023. The IV office rejected both applications, most recently with a decision dated 16 April 2025, as no disabling impairment was found despite health limitations. The Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed the appeal against this.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_346/2026: Non-admission of the appeal regarding award order for property
Summary of the Facts
The appellant opposed the award order of the Debt Collection Office Winterthur-Wülflingen for the auction of his property. After several unsuccessful complaints with the lower courts, he filed an appeal in civil matters with the Federal Supreme Court on 24 April 2026, whereby the purchaser C.________ requested participation in the proceedings.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_284/2025: Non-admission of the appeal regarding revocation of the pilot license
Summary of the Facts
A helicopter pilot (A.________) reported to the Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) that on 24 December 2021 he had flown twice under a Rhine bridge with a helicopter. This incident was filmed and published. The FOCA opened an administrative procedure and on 26 July 2022 ordered the revocation of his pilot license for two months. A.________'s appeal against this order was dismissed by the Federal Administrative Court. With an appeal in public law matters, A.________ brought the case to the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_353/2024: Non-admission of the appeal regarding unsealing and search of a mobile phone
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Supreme Court deals with the unsealing and search of a mobile phone that was seized in criminal proceedings against A.________ for commercial fraud, possibly breach of trust, and multiple forgery of documents. The lower court refused the unsealing of the mobile phone and the use of the previously created data mirror, as it considered the public prosecutor's approach contradictory and an abuse of procedure.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_168/2026: Non-admission of the appeal regarding interim order on medical assessment
Summary of the Facts
The appellant opposed the interim order of the IV office of the Canton of St. Gallen, which insisted on conducting a multidisciplinary medical assessment. The Insurance Court of the Canton of St. Gallen dismissed the appeal against this. Before the Federal Supreme Court, the appellant challenged this decision and simultaneously requested legal aid and suspensive effect.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_680/2025: Non-admission of the appeal regarding denial of justice by the Cantonal Court of Lucerne
Summary of the Facts
The appellant complained of an alleged denial or delay of justice by the Cantonal Court of Lucerne in connection with an appeal procedure regarding debt collection claims. The Federal Supreme Court procedure became moot after the Cantonal Court issued a decision on the matter.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_313/2026: Non-admission of the appeal regarding criminal matters
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed three separate criminal appeals against orders of the Cantonal Court of Valais, each issued on 5 February 2026. These orders concerned: (1) a non-acceptance order by the public prosecutor, (2) dismissal of an application for legal aid, and (3) non-admission declaration regarding appointment of a public defender and dismissal of an appeal against a dismissal order. The background was a personal search where suspected criminally acquired cash was seized.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_404/2024: Non-admission of the appeal regarding CE marking of AirTags
Summary of the Facts
B.________ Ltd., as the manufacturer of the AirTag product, supplies distributors such as A.________ AG in Switzerland. Following an inspection by the Federal Office of Communications (BAKOM), it was found that the AirTags did not meet the requirements for visibility of the CE mark. BAKOM requested A.________ AG to correct this for future imports, without excluding already stored products from distribution. A.________ AG unsuccessfully appealed to the Federal Administrative Court. In its judgment, the participation of B.________ Ltd. as a party was rejected and the imposed measures were confirmed. B.________ Ltd. filed an appeal against this judgment to the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_228/2026: Non-admission of the appeal regarding securing tax claims
Summary of the Facts
The couple A.________ and B.________ was requested by the tax authorities of the city of U.________ and the Canton of Zurich to provide securities in connection with owed and provisional state and municipal taxes for 2021–2025 as well as direct federal taxes for 2022–2025. This was justified by a tax risk due to the disproportion between the tax claims and the declared assets. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich mostly dismissed the legal remedies against these security orders and essentially confirmed the security orders.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_724/2025: Partial upholding of the appeal regarding disability pension
Summary of the Facts
The judgment centers on the question of a possible pension entitlement from the appellant's disability insurance due to health limitations, particularly from migraine and gynecological complaints. The IV office of the Canton of Zurich had denied the granting of a disability pension, which was confirmed by the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich. The Federal Supreme Court overturned the lower court judgment and remanded the case to the IV office for further investigation, especially because the Videmus expert report shows methodological deficiencies.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_381/2026: Non-admission of the appeal regarding dismissal of criminal proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Prosecutor decided not to initiate criminal proceedings following a criminal complaint. The appellant filed an appeal against this decision, which was dismissed by the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court on 11 March 2026, to the extent it was admitted. The appellant then filed a criminal appeal to the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_475/2026: Non-admission of the appeal regarding security deposit under the Criminal Procedure Code
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court. The appeal was based on an order of the Superior Court of the Canton of Graubünden which ordered a security deposit pursuant to Art. 303a para. 1 CPC. The appellant expressed only appellate criticism in her submission and did not address the reasoning of the lower court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_508/2026: Non-admission of the appeal regarding seizure of a vehicle
Summary of the Facts
In the course of a criminal investigation against A.________ for qualified violation of the Narcotics Act, the public prosecutor of the Canton of Lucerne ordered on 13 November 2025 the seizure of a vehicle (Mercedes-Benz AMG C 63 S). An appeal against this to the Cantonal Court of Lucerne was dismissed. A.________ subsequently filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court requesting the annulment of the Cantonal Court's decision and the return of the vehicle.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_296/2025: Non-admission of the appeal regarding attempted murder and aggravated robbery
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted by the District Court of Münchwilen inter alia for attempted murder, aggravated robbery and other offenses. The Superior Court of the Canton of Thurgau overturned the conviction for attempted intentional killing and reduced the sentence. However, it upheld the conviction for gang-related robbery, which was challenged by the Office of the Attorney General of the Canton of Thurgau by appeal.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_453/2025: Non-admission of the appeal regarding pension entitlement in disability insurance
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ applied to the IV office of the Canton of St. Gallen in 2014 for benefits, alleging complete incapacity for work due to psychological complaints. The IV office denied pension entitlement in a decision of November 2020. After a remand decision of the cantonal court for the preparation of a new psychiatric expert opinion, pension entitlement was again denied (decision 2024). The Insurance Court of the Canton of St. Gallen dismissed the appeal filed by A.________ against this.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_256/2026: Non-admission of the appeal regarding bankruptcy of A.________ GmbH in liquidation
Summary of the Facts
The District Court of Dielsdorf opened bankruptcy proceedings on 17 February 2026 over A.________ GmbH in liquidation because it had not fully paid its debts. The appellant filed an appeal against this with the Superior Court of the Canton of Zurich, which dismissed the appeal by decision dated 11 March 2026. The appellant then brought the case before the Federal Supreme Court on 18 March 2026.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_350/2026: Non-admission of the appeal regarding modification of child support
Summary of the Facts
The appellant requested modification of the child support set in a judgment of the District Court of Meilen dated 26 September 2023. The District Court did not admit the modification claim by order dated 27 May 2025. The Superior Court of the Canton of Zurich did not admit the appeal against this decision on 19 January 2026 for lack of sufficient reasoning. The appellant then turned to the Federal Supreme Court demanding the annulment of the Superior Court's decision, retroactive modification of child support and granting of legal aid.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_285/2025: Non-admission of the appeal regarding direct award of a tax declaration software
Summary of the Facts
The Canton of Thurgau awarded the contract for the further development of the existing tax declaration software "eFisc" in a direct award procedure to a specific provider (B.________ AG). A.________ AG, which was also interested in carrying out the project, contested this award arguing that there were other providers who could fulfill the contract. However, the Canton of Thurgau had not conducted market inquiries and relied on the fact that an adaptation of the existing software was necessary and could only be carried out by the original developer (B.________ AG). After the appeal was dismissed by the Administrative Court of the Canton of Thurgau, the Federal Supreme Court was called.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_315/2025: Non-admission of the appeal regarding deductibility of rental expenses and asset allocation
Summary of the Facts
The appellants, a married couple, carried out self-employed activities from their private apartment during the 2017 tax period. The dispute concerned the tax deductibility of rental expenses for professionally used living spaces as well as the allocation of shares in a company (Sàrl) held by one of the appellants to private or business assets.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2D_29/2025: Non-admission of the appeal regarding award decision
Summary of the Facts
D.________ SA conducted a public procurement procedure for engineering services involving interventions on several structures and underpasses of a narrow-gauge railway line. After consortium A.________ (B.________ SA and C.________ SA) was initially excluded with its offer, the award was made to consortium E.________ (F.________ SA and G.________ SA). A complaint by consortium A.________ against this award was partially and later fully rejected by the Administrative Tribunal of the Canton of Ticino. Consortium A.________ then filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.