Summary of the facts

The appellant A.________, an Indian national, married a Swiss woman in 2024 and in this context received a residence permit valid until August 2025. After the marriage failed in April 2025, the Migration Office of the Canton of Zurich refused to extend the residence permit and ordered his expulsion. A.________ filed legal remedies against this, which were ultimately dismissed by the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich. The appellant turned to the Federal Supreme Court and requested a temporary further stay in Switzerland until the conclusion of the divorce proceedings.

Summary of the facts

The two appellants, A.A.________ and B.A.________, Senegalese nationals, submitted an application for family reunification to move to Switzerland to their mother. She holds a residence permit but is dependent on social assistance. The application was rejected by the Population Service of the Canton of Vaud and subsequently by the Cantonal Court.

Summary of the facts

The Federal Supreme Court deals with an appeal by A.A.________ against a judgment of the Cour d'appel pénale of the Cantonal Tribunal of the Canton of Vaud. In this judgment, he was convicted, inter alia, of qualified simple bodily injury, sexual acts with children, qualified sexual coercion, and violation of care and educational duties, and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment. The allegations include numerous and partly serious assaults against his wife B.________ and his daughter C.A.________, including violent and sexual assaults as well as forms of psychological violence. A.A.________ mainly alleged a violation of his right to be heard due to the non-ordering of a renewed psychiatric evaluation and incorrect evaluation of evidence regarding the principle "in dubio pro reo." He requested the annulment of the judgment and a retrial.

Summary of the facts

The KESB Appenzell Ausserrhoden established a representative guardianship for A.________, which includes health care, asset management, and administrative matters. The Appenzell Ausserrhoden Higher Court confirmed this decision. A.________ filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court and criticized the measure as unnecessary and disproportionate.

Summary of the facts

After the death of his wife in 2012, the appellant received a widower's pension until 2022. This was revoked because the appellant's youngest child reached the age of 18. The appellant requested the resumption of pension payments, citing the judgment Beeler v. Switzerland of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which found discrimination in pension regulations between men and women.

Summary of the facts

The A.________ AG and B.________ AG, both part of the family-dominated corporate group "D.________-Group," litigated over rights to several properties at Lake W.________, previously sold by board members of their companies. In parallel, they requested that all members and substitute members of the Higher Court step down in connection with allegations against the President of the Higher Court of the Canton of Zug. The President had previously made statements about ongoing proceedings in the Cantonal Council, which the appellants considered improper influence. The Higher Court did not admit the recusal request, deeming it general and unsubstantiated.

Summary of the facts

The owner of a two-family house in Zug (party B.________) installed a photovoltaic system on her roof. A neighbor (party A.________) complained about glare effects of the system on his property and filed a building police complaint. The city of Zug granted the building permit without publication and, upon the neighbor's request, concluded that the PV system complied with regulations. The Government Council of the Canton of Zug and later the Administrative Court dismissed the complaints. The neighbor filed an appeal in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court.

Summary of the facts

The Federal Supreme Court had to decide on an appeal against a judgment of the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich. The appellant was convicted of threat and defamation to a conditional fine, a penalty, and a substitute custodial sentence. In his appeal, he demanded the annulment of this judgment and the remittance of the case to the lower instance.

Summary of the facts

On March 30, 2026, an on-call doctor of the Medical Services of the Department of Health Basel-Stadt ordered the protective placement of the appellant in the University Psychiatric Services Basel. The appeal against this was dismissed by the Court for Protective Placements of the Canton of Basel-Stadt on April 14, 2026. The appellant turned to the Federal Supreme Court with a submission dated April 28, 2026.

Summary of the facts

A federal public service employee (A.________) challenged various measures of her employer, the Federal Roads Office (ASTRA), including a transfer, a change of work area, and dismissal. The lower instance (Federal Administrative Court, TAF) rejected her requests for suspensive effect, precautionary measures, and the recusal request against the investigating judge. Furthermore, the procedures concerning the employment relationship were consolidated.

Summary of the facts

The parties have been litigating since 2024 before the Meilen District Court about the inheritance division. The appellant requested in September 2025 a reduction of the deadline to submit the reply and suspension due to certified incapacity to negotiate and proceed. After examining a medical certificate, the district court rejected the suspension. On March 3, 2026, the Zurich Higher Court did not admit the appeal against this because no irreparable disadvantage was demonstrated.

Summary of the facts

A.________ filed an objection against an order of the Police Court of Montagnes et du Val-de-Ruz dated November 13, 2025, which was declared inadmissible. The Neuchâtel Cantonal Court, authority for criminal appeals, declared on January 15, 2026 an appeal by A.________ inadmissible and unfounded. Subsequently, on February 19, 2026, A.________ filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.

Summary of the facts

B.________ was accused of committing the defilement of A.________ in Niederscherli on January 31, 2021. The Bern-Mittelland Regional Court acquitted B.________ by judgment of July 7, 2023. On appeal by A.________, the Bern Higher Court confirmed the acquittal on December 5, 2024, and dismissed the civil claim of the private plaintiff. A.________ requested the Federal Supreme Court to convict B.________ and order compensation of CHF 10,000.

Summary of the facts

The appellant, a Tunisian national born in Switzerland with a settlement permit, was sentenced by the lower court to 45 months imprisonment and expulsion for seven years due to serious violations of the Narcotics Act (LStup), extortion, and related offenses. The Federal Supreme Court examined his appeal against the expulsion and the applicability of the hardship clause under Art. 66a para. 2 StGB.

Summary of the facts

The appellant A.________ caused a traffic accident in X.________ on November 5, 2022. On April 20, 2023, a penal order was issued against him for driving incapacity and serious traffic violations. A.________ filed an objection on May 22, 2023, and requested restoration of the deadline under Art. 94 StPO, based on a medical certificate of complete incapacity to work due to illness between May 8 and 17, 2023. The cantonal instances declared the objection late and rejected the request for restoration of the deadline. A.________ then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.

Summary of the facts

The A.________ AG requested the removal of the Hardwald Bridge from the inventory of monuments of supra-municipal importance. The Building Directorate of the Canton of Zurich granted this request by order of February 23, 2023. The Zurich Heritage Protection and the Swiss Heritage Protection filed legal remedies against this order. During the procedure, the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich, 1st Division, 1st Chamber, by judgment of June 5, 2025, referred the matter back to the Building Directorate for further clarification and new decision. A.________ AG then appealed in public law matters to the Federal Supreme Court.

Summary of the facts

D. and E. applied in 2021 to the Beckenried municipal council for a building permit for a carport, a garden house, and a landscaping redesign. A., B., and C., neighboring property owners, raised objections. The Beckenried municipal council granted the building permit in 2022 under conditions and rejected the objections. The Nidwalden Government Council revoked the building permit in 2023. The Nidwalden Administrative Court upheld the appeal by D. and E. in 2024 and reinstated the building permit. A., B., and C. appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.

Summary of the facts

The proceedings concern two appeals against the decision of the Cour des mesures de protection de l’enfant et de l’adulte of the Cantonal Tribunal of Neuchâtel dated November 19, 2025. The focus is on the decision concerning the placement of the minor child (born 2018) of the unmarried parents A.________ (father) and B.________ (mother) and the refusal of legal aid. The child lived in an unstable environment characterized by lack of financial resources, parental drug problems, and violence within the family, which led to the ordering of various child protection measures.

Summary of the facts

Slovenia requested Switzerland to extradite A.________, who is accused in Slovenia of fraud and money laundering. A.________ claimed the allegations were politically motivated. The Federal Office of Justice approved the extradition, which A.________ challenged with the political offense exception and an appeal to the Federal Criminal Court. The Federal Criminal Court joined the proceedings and dismissed both the exception and the appeal.

Summary of the facts

The appellant A.________ challenged the valuation of his property ordered by the Oberland Debt Collection Office, Oberland West branch, by C.________ GmbH within a foreclosure of mortgage rights procedure. This appraiser had already valued the property in 2016. A.________ criticized her competence and demanded a different expert be appointed. The appeal against the procedural order was dismissed by the Bern Higher Court, supervisory authority in debt collection and bankruptcy matters. The appellant then filed a civil appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.

Summary of the facts

The appellant A.________ was prosecuted for multiple bodily injuries, threats, and other offenses. After several custody orders and judicial reviews, the Bülach District Court ordered a custodial measure under Art. 59 para. 1 StGB. A.________ complained about the early implementation of the measure and requested release and substitution with outpatient therapy. This request was denied by the lower instance.

Summary of the facts

As part of a penal order, A.________ was fined an unconditional fine of 40 daily rates of CHF 30 each on June 26, 2023, for an insufficient distance when driving on the highway. After objection, the Baden District Court increased the penalty on November 4, 2024, to a conditional fine of 24 daily rates of CHF 170 each and a fine of CHF 1,020. A.'s appeal against this judgment was dismissed by the Aargau Higher Court. The Higher Court also convicted A.________ of serious violation of the Road Traffic Act and imposed a conditional fine of 24 daily rates of CHF 260 each and a fine of CHF 1,560.

Summary of the facts

C.________ was convicted by the Criminal Chamber of Ticino for his role as an accomplice in qualified embezzlement. Between 2011 and 2013, together with A.________, he supported the principal offender F.________, acting as asset manager, in unlawfully using assets worth over CHF 8 million. The first-instance judgment included a conditional prison sentence of 27 months and an unconditional sentence of 9 months. Private damage claims were referred to civil proceedings. Both the defendant and the prosecution appealed. The cantonal court dismissed both appeals.

Summary of the facts

A.A.________ gifted his wife B.A.________ a property in 2008, documented by a notarized gift contract. In a 2009 agreement, they described the gift as a simulated legal transaction and agreed that the wife would transfer ownership back upon dissolution of the marital community. In ongoing marriage protection and divorce proceedings since 2021, A.A.________ requested precautionary measures to register his ownership of the property in the land register and to prohibit certain dispositions by the wife. The single judge at the Maloja Regional Court did not admit the precautionary request, but the Graubünden Higher Court confirmed the non-admission decision and dismissed the request on the merits.

Summary of the facts

The appellant, father of a son under an existing guardianship according to Art. 308 para. 1 and 2 ZGB, requested annulment of the decision of the KESB Region St. Gallen of March 12, 2026, which approved an accountability report of a guardian. The Administrative Appeals Commission of the Canton of St. Gallen denied him legal aid due to the hopelessness of his appeal. The St. Gallen Cantonal Court confirmed this decision. Before the Federal Supreme Court, the appellant requested annulment of the Cantonal Court's decision and granting of legal aid at all instances.

Summary of the facts

The appellant, a Portuguese national, has lived in Switzerland since 1996 and obtained a residence permit due to her marriage to a Swiss national, later a settlement permit. Since 2012, she has continuously received social assistance. After her divorce and in view of her health problems, she could not maintain stable employment on the open labor market. Due to her permanent and significant dependence on social assistance, the competent authority revoked her settlement permit and ordered her expulsion from Switzerland.

Summary of the facts

A.________, owner of parcel no. 3112 in the municipality of Payerne, was requested by the Vaud Cantonal Building Insurance (ECA) to revise the sprinkler system of his industrial building to comply with fire safety regulations. After challenging the ECA decision, the Vaud Administrative Court (Cour de droit administratif et public du Tribunal cantonal du canton de Vaud) ruled in favor of the appellant, annulled the order, and referred the matter back to the ECA for implementation of the new fire protection concept. A.________ appealed to the Federal Supreme Court to request revision of the cantonal judgment.

Summary of the facts

On May 26, 2015, a painter, †C.A.________, died while working on a waste compactor box after a 220 kg heavy unloading flap closed uncontrollably and hit him on the head. The respondent, B.________, was accused of violating his duty of care by approving the risky opening of the unloading flap without sufficient safety precautions.

Summary of the facts

The appellants are members of a community of heirs that owns a parcel in Beckenried. The municipality planned a zoning plan revision, which would partly reclassify this parcel from the building zone to the agricultural zone. A request by the appellants to prevent the rezoning and to decide on relocating the building zone northwards was rejected by the municipal council. The cantonal instances dismissed or did not admit the related appeals. The Nidwalden Administrative Court denied the appellants' standing to appeal because they acted without involving a co-heir (necessary party).

Summary of the facts

A.________ was accused of violating right of way on June 30, 2023 in U.________, which led to a collision with a properly driven passenger car. Property damage of about CHF 6,500 occurred. The District Court and the Zurich Higher Court convicted A.________ of negligent violation of traffic rules under Art. 90 para. 1 SVG to a fine of CHF 400 and a substitute custodial sentence of four days.

Summary of the facts

A.________ was disciplinarily sanctioned during early release in a correctional facility for smoking in a cell contrary to regulations. The cantonal instance found the sanction unlawful, considering a milder penalty more appropriate. A.________ appealed to the Federal Supreme Court with requests to annul the contested decision, additional compensation, and adjustments regarding the value-added tax.

Summary of the facts

The Dietikon Building Commission granted B.________ AG a building permit for dismantling connecting tracks. A.________ AG, owner of an adjacent property, appealed the permit to reactivate a decommissioned siding. After the Building Appeals Court and the Zurich Administrative Court dismissed the appeal and subsequent complaints, A.________ AG filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.

Summary of the facts

The appellant challenged various formal and material aspects of a criminal decision concerning a simple traffic rule violation. These included deficient service of an order, arbitrary evaluation of evidence, violation of the right to be heard, and disproportionate procedural costs. However, the appeal failed already on formal grounds: no sufficient advance payment was made, and the appeal also did not meet the requirements for sufficient reasoning.

Summary of the facts

A.________ and B.________, a municipal police officer, were involved in a neighborhood conflict. The dispute centered on an incident of September 25, 2020, when A.________ was sanctioned by the police for an offense. This was followed by mutual criminal complaints. A.________ eventually accused B.________ of violating official secrecy by passing information about the incident to neighbors, leading to criminal proceedings. The proceedings were discontinued by the Geneva Public Prosecutor's Office, and an appeal against this dismissal was rejected by the lower instance, the Chambre pénale de recours.

Summary of the facts

The appellant was convicted by penal order for violation of the Narcotics Act and other offenses. Having missed the objection deadline, the penal order became final. A request for revision concerning the confiscation of 1.8 grams of cocaine was rejected by the lower instance due to lack of new facts. The appellant then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, requesting annulment of the lower court's non-admission decision.

Summary of the facts

The appellants, owners of a neighboring property, challenged cantonal authority decisions regarding a building permit and proximity building permit for four planned multi-family houses with underground parking. They alleged violations of the right to be heard, deficiencies in infrastructure, and the legality of the proximity building permit.

Summary of the facts

A.________ filed an appeal against a decision of the Federal Administrative Court (judgment of January 22, 2026, C-1377/2024). The appeal concerned a question related to disability insurance, specifically the admissibility of the appeal.

Summary of the facts