Latest Judgments of the Federal Supreme Court
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 including 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 individually tailored to your legal fields.
7B_1117/2025: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Credibility Assessment
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a criminal complaint against B.B.________, the father of her children, on March 18, 2015, for domestic violence. Conversely, the children C.B.________ and D.B.________ filed a criminal complaint against A.________ on September 20, 2021, for various sexual offenses. During the investigation, A.________ requested the conduct of a credibility assessment and other evidence collection, which was rejected by the Geneva Public Prosecutor's Office. A.________ appealed this decision to the Geneva Criminal Appeals Chamber, which declared the appeal inadmissible by decision of September 17, 2025.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court found that the challenged decision is a final cantonal inadmissibility decision, whereby the appeal would be admissible under the conditions of Art. 93 para. 1 BGG. The appellant is entitled to appeal, and the appeal was filed in proper form and on time. A.________ alleged a violation of her right to be heard. She argued that the cantonal instance did not sufficiently consider her motions and arguments. The Federal Supreme Court held that the lower court fulfilled its duty to provide reasons by relying on the essential aspects of the evidentiary situation. The appellant also relied on the principle of equality of arms, arguing that the refusal of the credibility assessment disadvantaged her defense. The Federal Supreme Court, however, saw no irreparable disadvantage in this, as the motions for assessment and witness questioning can be made again in the main proceedings. The court finally examined the objection that a possible loss of evidence (e.g., due to the passage of time) must be prevented. It clarified that no concrete and irreparable harm resulting from the decision of the Public Prosecutor's Office or the lower court was demonstrated.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal is dismissed and the court costs are imposed on the appellant.
1C_573/2024: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Compensation under the Victim Assistance Act
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Supreme Court had to assess whether an applicant who was psychologically affected in 1999 by the intentional killing of his sister by his brother is entitled to compensation under the Victim Assistance Act (aOHG). The applicant also considered that his mental impairment and incapacity to work diagnosed in 2019 constitute a "late-occurring" consequence of the events and might possibly trigger a new limitation period.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examined which legal basis (aOHG or OHG) must be applied. Since the crime (intentional killing) was committed in 1999, the aOHG applies. No severe bodily injury to the appellant could be established. The Federal Supreme Court dealt with the question of forfeiture. The two-year limitation period began in 1999 with the appellant's knowledge of the intentional killing. Late effects that only became known in 2019 or 2020 do not change the start of the limitation period.
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and granted the appellant legal aid free of charge. The appellant’s lawyer receives compensation from the Federal Supreme Court fund.
1C_631/2025: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Building Permit for Energy Renovation
Summary of the Facts
C.________, owner of a plot in Lausanne, planned the energy renovation, transformation, and extension of her villa as well as the construction of an outdoor pool. The neighbors A.________ and B.________ filed objections against this building application, particularly regarding the number and location of the planned parking spaces. After revising the project with appropriate adjustments, the municipality of Lausanne lifted the objections and issued a building permit based on a new parking regulation (MRPGA), which was not yet legally binding at that time. The cantonal administrative court dismissed an appeal against this decision. The appellants requested the Federal Supreme Court to annul the building permit.
Summary of the Considerations
- E.1: The subject matter of the appeal fell under public building law and was thus admissible according to Art. 82 lit. a BGG. The appellants were direct neighbors and therefore entitled to appeal (Art. 89 para. 1 BGG). - E.2: The appellants complained about insufficient establishment of the facts regarding existing and planned parking spaces as well as a violation of the right to be heard. The court considered the number of existing parking spaces to be compliant with the rules and saw no reason to obtain additional evidence. - E.3: Another criticism concerned the regulations on the number of parking spaces according to Art. 19 and 22 RPG as well as cantonal law. The Federal Supreme Court found no irregularities in the application of the applicable provisions here either. - E.4: The appellants argued that the building project violated regulations on the number of floors and improperly exploited the parcel situation. The Federal Supreme Court examined the urban planning requirements, but confirmed the admissibility of the regulations applied by the municipality of Lausanne concerning the classification of floors on slopes and dismissed the appeal on this point as well.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, with imposition of court costs and party compensations.
5A_449/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Suspensive Effect in Enforcement Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The appellant challenged a decision of the Bern High Court, which had rejected a request for suspensive effect in connection with a property auction and a viewing. The Federal Supreme Court had already rejected a super-provisional request on May 20, 2026, and in the present decision assessed the admissibility of the appeal.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_290/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Arrest Warrant
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against an arrest warrant which the president of the appeals chamber of the criminal court of the canton of Bern deemed late on February 11, 2026. The original proceedings were initiated by a summons and subsequently an arrest warrant issued by the Regional Court Jura bernois-Seeland.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_648/2025: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Garnishability of Credits
Summary of the Facts
In the debt enforcement proceedings of B.________ AG against A.________, the Höfe debt enforcement office seized, among other things, credits in the debtor's account on October 7, 2024. A.________ filed an appeal, which was partially upheld. Subsequently, the Schwyz Cantonal Court did not admit his renewed appeal, as it did not consider the reasoning legally sufficient.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
6B_942/2024: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Lack of Due Diligence in Financial Transactions
Summary of the Facts
The appellants A.________, B.________, C.________, and D.________, employees of Bank E.________, were convicted for lack of due diligence in financial transactions within the meaning of Art. 305ter para. 1 of the Swiss Criminal Code. Central were business relationships in which doubts about the economic beneficiary of a client existed and additional checks were omitted. These relationships were established in 2014 and terminated after internal discussions in 2016. Preceding this were reports on the Panama Papers and an investigation by FINMA.
The Zurich District Court and, in second instance, the Zurich Cantonal Court found the accused guilty, with the Cantonal Court reducing the penalties. The conviction occurred despite uncertainty as to whether the actual economic beneficiary was correctly identified.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
8C_503/2024: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Re-registration with Disability Insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________, born in 1970, first registered with the IV (disability insurance) in 2013 due to joint complaints. A pension entitlement was denied in 2017 (disability degree 6%). In 2020, a re-registration occurred due to recurrent depressive disorder, rheumatic complaints, and a herniated disc. An expert opinion in 2022 led to the IV's decision of November 9, 2023, again denying pension entitlement; no relevant change in circumstances was found. The Aargau Insurance Court dismissed the insured's appeal in 2024. With the present appeal, A.________ requested the Federal Supreme Court a reassessment and at least a half disability pension from June 2021.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
6B_180/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Multiple Insults and Coercion
Summary of the Facts
The appellant was convicted by the Lucerne Cantonal Court on October 31, 2025, for multiple insults and coercion to a conditional fine and a penalty. He filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, essentially alleging violation of his right to be heard and procedural fairness.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_414/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning the Garnishment Order
Summary of the Facts
The appellant challenged a garnishment order of the Regional Debt Enforcement Office Zofingen and alleged before the Aargau High Court delay and denial of justice by the Zofingen District Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal insofar as it admitted it. Thereupon, the appellant filed a civil appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
6B_239/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Fraud in Connection with Covid-19 Loans
Summary of the Facts
The Zurich Public Prosecutor's Office filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against the judgment of the Zurich High Court dated January 27, 2026. The subject matter was a fraud case related to Covid-19 loans. On May 12, 2026, the appellant withdrew the appeal filed on April 10, 2026.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
9C_272/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Deficiencies in the Submission
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed an appeal against a decision of the Federal Administrative Court dated February 27, 2026. The lower court had not admitted the appeal because the submission lacked clear requests for relief and a deadline to improve the submission passed unused.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_388/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Custodial Placement and Treatment
Summary of the Facts
The appellant was placed in custodial care on February 10, 2026, based on a medical order, with simultaneous emergency restriction of freedom of movement (isolation) and treatment without consent (medication). The appellant filed complaints against the custodial placement and the said measures with the Aargau Administrative Court. This court partially upheld the complaint against the custodial placement but dismissed the other complaints. On May 5, 2026, the appellant filed another appeal against all measures with the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_230/2024: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Continuation of the Criminal Investigation
Summary of the Facts
A.B.________ requested continuation of the discontinued criminal investigation against B.B.________ for disobedience to official orders (Art. 292 SCC). The Aargau High Court partially did not admit the appeal of A.B.________ and dismissed it in other respects. The Federal Supreme Court examined the admissibility of the criminal appeal of A.B.________ and decided that the submission did not meet the reasoning requirements regarding the appeal standing of the private plaintiff.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
1C_506/2025: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning the Declaration of Inadmissibility of a Cantonal Appeal
Summary of the Facts
The judgment concerns an appeal against the declaration of inadmissibility of a cantonal appeal by the Cour de droit administratif et public of the Tribunal cantonal of the Canton of Vaud (CDAP). The appellants had opposed a building permit in the municipality of Pully but did not pay the prescribed cost deposit of 4,000 CHF within the deadline. A refund of the missed payment deadline was refused by the CDAP.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
9C_256/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Health Insurance
Summary of the Facts
The appellant had been insured since January 1, 2022, in the gatekeeper insurance model "Combi Care" of the respondent insurer. Due to a notification obligation violation (failure to report to the telemedical advice center), the insurer refused full coverage of costs for treatments conducted at B.________ AG and demanded the appellant to bear certain cost shares himself. The Bern Administrative Court upheld this decision in first instance.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_400/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning the Establishment of a Guardianship
Summary of the Facts
The Child and Adult Protection Authority (KESB) Arbon established a representative guardianship with income and asset management based on a danger report by the appellant’s psychiatrist, who found the appellant incapable of independently handling administrative and financial matters. The appellant filed an appeal against this, which was dismissed by the Thurgau High Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
1C_227/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Zoning Plan Amendment and Cable Car Project
Summary of the Facts
The dispute concerns the amendment of a zoning plan as well as the approval of plans for routing in connection with a cable car project between Sion and Mayens de l'Ours in the Canton of Valais. The lower court, the president of the Cour de droit public of the Cantonal Court of Valais, declared the appeal of the appellant A.________ inadmissible.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
6B_832/2025: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Conviction for Entrave aux services d'intérêt général
Summary of the Facts
Three appellants who participated in two unauthorized climate protests in Lausanne in 2019 were convicted, among other things, for "Entrave aux services d'intérêt général" under Art. 239 SCC. The assemblies caused serious traffic disruptions through blockades of major urban traffic routes, resulting in delays and detours for bus lines. They were sentenced to fines and penalties in the lower court proceedings. The main goal of these actions, to draw attention to the climate crisis, was undisputed.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_413/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Legal Aid
Summary of the Facts
The appellant repeatedly approached the Basel-Stadt Civil Court over medical concerns. He requested an investigation of medical complaints, which among other things involved psychiatry and the police. The Basel-Stadt Civil Court dismissed the submissions as inadmissible due to defects (Art. 132 para. 3 CPC). The Basel-Stadt Court of Appeal refused legal aid on grounds of futility and demanded a cost advance. The appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
1C_354/2025: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Building Application for Center for Accommodation of Asylum Seekers
Summary of the Facts
The building application of the "Hospice général" in the Canton of Geneva concerned the construction of a center for accommodation of asylum seekers on two parcels in the Petit-Saconnex area, classified as zones for public facilities and green spaces. The original approval of the building project by the Department of Territory (DT) waived a neighborhood development plan. After an unsuccessful appeal before the Tribunal administratif de première instance (TAPI) and the Chambre administrative of the Cour de justice of the Canton of Geneva, the affected neighbors brought the case to the Federal Supreme Court. They complained, among other things, about the zoning conformity of the project and insufficient establishment of the facts.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_409/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Suspension of a Cantonal Criminal Procedure
Summary of the Facts
A.A.________ filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against a decision of the Bern High Court which confirmed the suspension of the cantonal criminal proceedings xxx, yyy, and zzz.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_368/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Non-admittance by the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court
Summary of the Facts
The appellant had filed a criminal complaint against the State Secretariat for Migration. The Federal Prosecutor's Office ordered the non-admittance of the case on February 23, 2026. The appellant filed a complaint against this order, which the appeals chamber of the Federal Criminal Court did not process by order of March 16, 2026, as it dismissed the complaint.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_412/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Forced Medication
Summary of the Facts
An appellant suffering from paranoid schizophrenia is placed in custodial care in a clinic. He filed a complaint with the KESB Münchwilen against the forced medication ordered by the clinic, which was dismissed. The Thurgau High Court confirmed this decision on April 16, 2026. On May 8, 2026, the appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_494/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Withdrawal of the Appeal
Summary of the Facts
A.________ Sàrl had filed an appeal against the decision of the Chambre pénale de recours of the Cour de justice of the Canton of Geneva dated March 18, 2026. On May 12, 2026, A.________ Sàrl withdrew the appeal.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_305/2025: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Reconsideration of a Residence Permit
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a national of Guinea, had lived in Switzerland since 2000 and obtained residence permits through two marriages with Swiss nationals. Due to criminal offenses and termination of the marital relationship, his residence permits were not renewed. Remedies against non-renewal and expulsion were unsuccessful. In 2024, he again applied for reconsideration of the residence permit, which was rejected by the Migration Office by non-admission. This decision was confirmed by the Security Directorate and the Zurich Administrative Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_403/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Modification of a Protective Order in Marriage
Summary of the Facts
The appellant and the respondent are separated parents of two children. The Zofingen District Court regulated various aspects of parental custody and the children's residence in a decision dated March 13, 2026. The decision was challenged by the appellant before the Aargau High Court, which on April 2, 2026, did not admit the implicit appeal and rejected the request for suspensive effect. The appellant subsequently filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court requesting annulment of the High Court decision and recognition of the jurisdiction of the family court in Tunisia.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_395/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Dismissal of a Guardian and Consent to a Day Care Contract Amendment
Summary of the Facts
The separated parents of two children dispute the dismissal of a guardian and the consent to an amendment of the day care contract for the children. After the Child and Adult Protection Authority (KESB) refused the dismissal and approved the day care contract with increased hours, this decision was confirmed by the Bern High Court. The appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, alleging arbitrariness in decision-making and violation of the right to be heard.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
8C_289/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Supplementary Benefits to AHV/IV
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Supreme Court decided on an appeal regarding supplementary benefits to AHV/IV. The cantonal insurance court of Aargau had not admitted a previous appeal because the objection requirements according to Art. 52 para. 1 ATSG were not met. The appeal to the Federal Supreme Court contained no sufficient reasoning on how the challenged judgment violates federal law.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_520/2025: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Violation of the Lawyer’s Duty to Inform
Summary of the Facts
A lawyer (A.________) was reported by his former client (B.________) to the Lawyers' Commission of the Canton of Aargau for insufficient information about accumulated costs during their mandate relationship. The Lawyers' Commission found a violation of Art. 12 lit. i BGFA and imposed a fine of CHF 2,000.–. The Aargau Administrative Court dismissed the lawyer’s appeal against this decision. The lawyer turned to the Federal Supreme Court, which also recognized a violation of the duty to inform.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_244/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Public Tender
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Roads Office (ASTRA) published a tender on the SIMAP platform for construction services under the project title "MP-170014 Wildlife Crossing Biberlikopf, UN construction". Since only one offer, by B.________ AG and C.________ AG (together A.________), was submitted, the awarding authority excluded it from evaluation because it did not meet the tender requirements. The tender procedure was subsequently cancelled. A.________ filed an appeal with the Federal Administrative Court, which was dismissed. The present appeal is directed against this decision to the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_289/2026: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Restoration of Deadline for Filing an Appeal Statement in Assault Cases
Summary of the Facts
The appellant was convicted of assault on March 26, 2025. Her appeal was dismissed by the Basel-Landschaft Cantonal Court due to late submission of the appeal statement. Furthermore, the Cantonal Court rejected a request to restore the deadline for appeal.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
9C_247/2025: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning a Disability Insurance Pension
Summary of the Facts
The appellant had filed a third request for benefits from the disability insurance, claiming a deterioration in his health condition. This was rejected by the cantonal court as no objectified deterioration could be established based on medical reports and expert opinions. The appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the granting of a full pension from November 30, 2020, or a reassessment by the cantonal court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_936/2024: Non-admission of the Appeal concerning Opening of Criminal Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and B.________ filed criminal complaints against several persons on January 25 and 26, 2023, accusing them of causing the insolvency of a company through various acts. On March 27, 2024, the Lausanne District Public Prosecutor’s Office rejected the opening of criminal proceedings. The appeal by A.________ and B.________ was declared inadmissible by the Vaud Cantonal Tribunal on July 22, 2024. They filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court on November 1, 2024, requesting annulment of the non-admittance order and remittance to the Public Prosecutor for further investigation.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.