Latest Federal Supreme Court Judgments
Here you will find the most recent judgments of the Federal Supreme Court (FSCS) 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 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 areas of law.
2C_696/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning extension of the residence permit
Summary of the Facts
The Turkish national A.________ had lived in Switzerland since November 2022 with a residence permit based on family reunification with her Swiss husband. After the couple’s separation in May 2024, the canton of Fribourg refused to extend her residence permit and ordered her expulsion. After the Fribourg cantonal court dismissed her appeal, she lodged a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court seeking a residence permit on personal grounds.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examines its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the complaint under federal law. The conditions for admissibility, in particular a potential claim under Art. 50 para. 1 lit. b and para. 2 of the Foreign Nationals and Integration Act (FNIA), are met. It is established that the Federal Supreme Court examines legal violations ex officio. Factual findings of the lower court can only be challenged if obviously incorrect or in case of legal violation. The lower court committed no arbitrariness in its findings of fact. The complainant’s allegations of domestic violence were considered insufficiently substantiated. The complaints regarding violation of the evaluation of evidence and findings of fact are dismissed. The main point of dispute concerns whether reasons exist for an extension of the residence permit on personal grounds pursuant to Art. 50 para. 1 lit. b FNIA. The new version of Art. 50 FNIA applies, since the application was made during the transitional period. Neither the alleged influence of the mother-in-law nor a theft by her constitutes violence within the meaning of Art. 50 para. 2 lit. a FNIA. Even assuming a conflict with the family at home in Turkey, the complainant can live in other regions of the country, e.g. western large cities. Therefore, a seriously impeded reintegration cannot be claimed. The lower court’s dismissal of requests for legal aid is confirmed as the complaint had no serious prospect of success from the outset. The complaint is dismissed in its entirety as unfounded.
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaint is dismissed, the request for legal aid is also dismissed, and no court costs are charged.
2C_185/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning legal aid
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ GmbH applied to the Federal Office of Energy (FOE) for a project contribution for a pilot project (GEOHIL). The FOE rejected the application. Before the Federal Administrative Court, A.________ GmbH filed a request for legal aid, which the Federal Administrative Court denied by interlocutory order of 12 March 2026. A.________ GmbH then lodged a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the Considerations
The complaint is directed against an interlocutory order of the Federal Administrative Court concerning legal aid. According to Art. 93 BGG, complaints against interlocutory decisions are only admissible if there is an irreparable disadvantage. The main subject of the complaint is solely the question of legal aid; the other requests (e.g. annulment of the FOE’s decision) are not part of the dispute and are inadmissible. The conditions for granting legal aid to legal persons are very restrictive according to Federal Supreme Court practice. The lower court found that A.________ GmbH does not meet these conditions as neither its sole asset is disputed nor is the shareholder demonstrably destitute. The submission by A.________ GmbH does not meet the requirements for proper reasoning under Art. 42 BGG, as no plausible legal violation is alleged. The complaint is manifestly insufficiently reasoned. The presiding member decides on this in summary proceedings pursuant to Art. 108 BGG.
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaint is not admitted, no court costs arise, and no entitlement to party compensation exists.
2C_245/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning the Maturity Examination
Summary of the Facts
A person (A.________) failed the Swiss Maturity Examination due to insufficient performance. He challenged the results by various legal remedies, whereby the Federal Administrative Court finally declared inadmissible on 16 April 2026 a complaint he had filed that was unsigned and undated due to formal defects. A subsequent reconsideration submission was forwarded to the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the Considerations
- E.1: The Federal Supreme Court examines its jurisdiction ex officio (Art. 29 para. 1 BGG). The choice of legal remedy depends on the subject matter, even if the challenged decision is procedural in nature. - E.2: According to Art. 83 lit. t BGG, a complaint in public law matters against decisions on examination results is inadmissible. This applies to assessments of intellectual performance if they are the subject of the dispute. - E.3: A subsidiary constitutional complaint is not admissible against decisions of the Federal Administrative Court (Art. 113 BGG). - E.4: Based on the foregoing, the complaint is inadmissible. The procedure is concluded in simplified form pursuant to Art. 108 para. 1 lit. a BGG. No court costs are charged.
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaint is declared inadmissible, and no court costs are charged. The judgment is communicated to the relevant parties.
7B_480/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning extension of preventive detention
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ submitted a handwritten complaint to the Federal Supreme Court dated 9 April 2026 against the decision of the Obergericht of the canton of Bern which ordered the extension of preventive detention. Due to the illegibility of large parts of his complaint, a deadline until 30 April 2026 was set by decree of 17 April 2026 for him to submit a legible version. He did not comply with this request and instead submitted further handwritten, partly illegible submissions.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_531/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning withdrawal of the complaint
Summary of the Facts
A.________ had filed a complaint against a judgment of the single judge of the criminal chamber of the cantonal court of Valais dated 15 April 2026, but withdrew it by submission of 30 April 2026.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
4A_7/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning joint debtorship and internal debt settlement relations
Summary of the Facts
A.________, B.________, C.________ and D.________ were joint debtors of a lease agreement with F.________ SA. C.________ acted as representative of the other debtors when signing an acknowledgment of debt (CHF 291,000) in connection with the termination of the contract. In a later settlement between C.________ and D.________ with creditor F.________ SA, the debt was reduced to CHF 220,000. C.________ and D.________ demanded half of the paid amount back from A.________ and B.________.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_278/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning classification as an establishment for travelers
Summary of the Facts
migrolino AG operates a branch near Winterthur railway station. It was disputed whether the branch should be classified as an establishment for travelers according to Art. 26 para. 4 ArGV 2 and thus be allowed to employ staff on Sundays without official authorization. After conflicting decisions in the lower courts, Migrolino AG appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
8C_181/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning procedural requirement for supplementary benefits
Summary of the Facts
The complainant challenged a judgment of the Insurance Court of the canton of Solothurn, which had dismissed his complaint against a decision by the compensation office of the canton of Solothurn. The cantonal court justified the non-admission on the grounds that the complaint did not meet formal requirements, was not timely improved, nor personally signed.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
9C_641/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning tax periods
Summary of the Facts
The tax authority of the canton of Geneva performed an assessment of spouses A.A. and B.A. for the tax periods 2010–2015 based on the qualification of art sales as independent activity. Income from sales of art objects from the privately held collection was included in the taxation. These tax decisions were essentially confirmed by the TAPI and the Cour de justice, Administrative Chamber. The taxpayers disputed the qualification of their art sales as independent activity and the estimations regarding the value of the collection and their livelihood.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
8C_180/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning procedural requirement for supplementary benefits to AHV/IV
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ lodged an objection against a decision on supplementary benefits to AHV/IV. The compensation office of the canton of Solothurn did not admit the objection due to missed deadline. The Insurance Court of the canton confirmed this decision, leading the complainant to lodge a complaint before the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
4A_537/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning freezing of crypto-assets
Summary of the Facts
The complainant (A.________ AG) and the respondent (B.________ AG) had concluded a broker and storage agreement to trade and manage crypto assets. Due to sanctions lists and possible connections between the complainant and sanctioned persons (F.F.________ and H.F.________), the respondent froze the assets. The complainant then demanded the release of the crypto assets and sued the Commercial Court of the canton of Zurich, which dismissed the claim.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
4A_630/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning cancellation of a trademark due to non-use
Summary of the Facts
A.________ Ltd., owner of Swiss trademark no. xxx C.________, filed for classes 16, 25 and 28, opposes the partial cancellation of the trademark requested by the respondent B.________ in connection with goods in class 25 ("Vêtements, chaussures, chapellerie") due to non-use. The IGE ordered the partial cancellation, and the Federal Administrative Court dismissed a complaint against this. It found the trademark not used for this goods class, while the trademark owner could not prove a use preserving the rights.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
4A_535/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning asset freeze of cryptocurrencies
Summary of the Facts
The complainant (A.________ AG) and the respondent (B.________ AG) concluded a contract covering custody and trading of cryptocurrencies. After the nephew of the sanctioned E.E.________ was added to the US OFAC sanctions list, B.________ AG refused to release cryptocurrencies of A.________ AG citing a statutory asset freeze under Art. 15 of the Ukraine Ordinance. These assets could at least indirectly be under the control of E.E.________. The lower court dismissed A.________ AG's claim for release and transfer of cryptocurrencies.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
8C_441/2025: Upholding of the complaint concerning disability pension and valid income
Summary of the Facts
An accident on 7 November 2017 caused injuries to the right knee and spine of the respondent, who worked as a fitter of photovoltaic systems. The Swiss Accident Insurance Fund (Suva) initially stopped daily allowance payments and later denied a disability pension and an integrity compensation. The Lucerne cantonal court granted a temporary disability pension of 13% for the period from 1 July 2019 to 30 September 2022. Suva then lodged a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court to confirm the objection decision of 7 October 2024.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_1051/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning the admissibility of evidence
Summary of the Facts
In the canton of Geneva, two police officers, A.________ and B.________, conducted a traffic check on 10 May 2024 without legal basis. During this, A.________ verbally threatened a person involved, and B.________ passed on confidential information. A video recorded by a private individual documenting the events was subsequently admitted as evidence by the public prosecutor. The question of the admissibility of the video was raised as it may have been obtained unlawfully.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_735/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning public tender of a specialized application
Summary of the Facts
The procedure concerns the public tender for a specialized application for the courts of the canton of Aargau, intended to replace the previous software JURIS 4. After receipt of the offers, A.________ AG was excluded from the procedure and the contract awarded to B.________ AG. A.________ AG appealed these decisions to the Federal Supreme Court, requesting, among other things, the annulment of the exclusion and the inclusion of its offer in the evaluation.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_236/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning residence permit
Summary of the Facts
A.A.________, B.A.________ and their daughter C.A.________ applied for residence permits within the framework of family reunification. The migration office of the canton of Zurich rejected the application by decision of 9 September 2025. The security directorate of the canton of Zurich did not admit the applicants’ complaint by decision of 19 January 2026 due to missed appeal deadline. The administrative court of the canton of Zurich dismissed the complaint, as far as it was admitted, by judgment of 24 February 2026. The complainants then lodged a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_209/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning administrative detention
Summary of the Facts
The Turkish national A.________, who has lived in Switzerland since 1986 and whose settlement permit was revoked in 2009, was arrested by the police on 18 March 2026 after evading return by hiding since 6 January 2025 following a final expulsion order. By decision of 25 March 2026, the cantonal service for population and migration ordered administrative detention for three months. On 27 March 2026, the competent cantonal court confirmed this order. A.________ lodged a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court but did not provide reasoning meeting legal requirements.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_268/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning classification of a Migros-Daily branch as an establishment for travelers
Summary of the Facts
The Migros Zürich cooperative has operated a Migros-Daily branch near Zurich main station since 2019. Due to its proximity to the station, various administrative procedures were conducted to classify the branch as an establishment for travelers within the meaning of Art. 26 para. 4 ArGV 2 and to enable Sunday opening. After the administrative court of the canton of Zurich denied such classification, the Migros cooperative appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_147/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning provisional withdrawal of the right of residence determination
Summary of the Facts
The parties are the parents A.A.________ (complainant) and B.A.________, and their common daughter C.A.________ (born 2013). The procedure was triggered by a danger report from the school to the KESB Ausserschwyz on 30 October 2025. On 31 October 2025, the KESB withdrew the parents’ right of residence determination and placed the daughter in the E.________ foundation. Any complaint by the parents was issued without suspensive effect. Furthermore, on 19 November 2025, a child representation pursuant to Art. 314a et seq. ZGB was appointed. The administrative court of the canton of Schwyz dismissed the father’s complaint, partly by non-admission.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
9C_16/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning helplessness compensation
Summary of the Facts
The respondent, born in 2005, suffers from congenital spastic paraparesis and a cognitive deficit. She applied for helplessness compensation in March 2024. The cantonal disability insurance office of Neuchâtel granted her a low degree compensation in May 2025. Upon appeal, the Neuchâtel cantonal court granted her helplessness compensation of a medium degree from 1 April 2023. The office lodged a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_54/2026: Dismissal of the complaint concerning residence permit in family reunification
Summary of the Facts
An Algerian national (A.________), previously entitled to residence in Switzerland, applies for a residence permit within the scope of family reunification to live with his minor children residing in Switzerland. He had previously been convicted of several crimes, expelled from Switzerland, and banned from re-entry. His renewed request for re-examination or reassessment of his application was declared inadmissible by cantonal authorities as no new material facts were presented.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
8C_182/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning procedural requirements for supplementary benefits to AHV/IV
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, A.________, lodged a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court against the judgment of the Insurance Court of the canton of Solothurn. The dispute concerned procedural requirements related to supplementary benefits to AHV/IV. The cantonal court did not admit the complainant’s complaint because it was both substantively insufficient and unsigned, although an improvement under threat of default consequences had been requested.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
8C_442/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning integrity compensation
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, A.________, suffered a work accident in November 2017 while working as a fitter of photovoltaic systems, injuring his spine and right knee. After the Swiss Accident Insurance Fund (Suva) temporarily stopped benefits for medical treatment and daily allowances, it later denied entitlement to a disability pension and an integrity compensation. The lower court, the Lucerne cantonal court, granted the complainant a temporary disability pension but dismissed the claim for integrity compensation. The complainant then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, requesting an integrity compensation of 25% or the commissioning of an external expert opinion.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
9C_169/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning additional taxes and fines due to undeclared income
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________, owner of B.________ GmbH, failed to declare income in his tax returns for the tax periods 2015, 2016, 2019, and 2020. This led to the opening of additional tax and fine proceedings by the cantonal tax office of Zurich. The administrative court of the canton of Zurich dismissed the complaints filed by the complainant against the tax office’s decision. The complainant appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.