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. The full 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 areas of law.
8C_279/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning accident and knee complaints
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, a community of heirs, lodged a complaint against the decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Schwyz, which confirmed the objection decision of the Swiss Accident Insurance Institution (Suva). The subject was the denial of a natural causal connection between an accident and later occurring knee complaints as well as Suva's exemption from benefits.
Summary of the Considerations
Para 1: The requirements for filing the complaint are addressed, in particular the requirements for reasoning pursuant to Art. 42 para. 2 FSC. It is not sufficient to merely claim an erroneous decision in an appellate manner. Para 2: The lower court found that there was no natural causal connection between the accident of September 1, 2023, and the knee complaints. Para 3: The complaint does not meet the statutory reasoning requirements, as general allegations without demonstrating a violation of law were made. Para 4: Due to the obviously insufficient reasoning, the Federal Supreme Court does not admit the complaint (Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b FSC). Para 5: Legal aid is refused due to the futility of the complaint. However, the imposition of court costs is waived (Art. 64 para. 1 FSC; Art. 66 para. 1 sentence 2 FSC).
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court did not admit the complaint and rejected the request for legal aid. No court costs were imposed.
6B_212/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning a revision request
Summary of the Facts
By penal order dated October 23, 2023, the appellant was convicted of misleading the administration of justice. After several objections, complaints and a revision request, the Higher Court of the Canton of Bern decided on January 30, 2026, not to enter into the revision request. The appellant filed a complaint against this decision with the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examines formal requirements pursuant to Art. 42 para. 2 FSC for the reasoning of a complaint. It emphasizes that insufficiently reasoned complaints will not be admitted. The lower court found that the appellant did not present new, legally relevant facts or evidence as grounds for revision according to Art. 410 para. 1 lit. a - c CPC. Furthermore, criticism of procedural conduct or allegations of procedural defects are not suitable to justify a revision procedure. The subject of the procedure was exclusively the question of non-admission of the revision request. The appellant's submissions on other topics or procedural stages were dismissed as irrelevant. The Federal Supreme Court confirms that the revision procedure is not intended to question a final decision again. The appellant in particular did not demonstrate that grounds for revision exist. The Federal Supreme Court points out that additions after the deadline remain disregarded and that it, as the Federal Supreme Court, is neither responsible for receiving criminal complaints nor for instructions to cantonal authorities.
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court did not admit the complaint, rejected the request for legal aid, and imposed the court costs on the appellant.
9C_262/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning tax assessment
Summary of the Facts
The taxpayer A.________ did not submit a tax return for the 2020 tax period despite a reminder. The tax authority Olten-Gösgen therefore assessed him at its discretion. The taxpayer’s objection was dismissed due to insufficient reasoning and missing documents. The cantonal legal remedies were unsuccessful, so the taxpayer lodged a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court. He argued, among other things, that the canton of Solothurn was not competent for his taxation and requested the determination of his residence in the canton of Basel-Landschaft as well as legal aid.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court established the facts: The objection deadline was met, yet the tax authority did not enter into the objection due to lack of sufficient reasoning. The lower court confirmed this decision, as by law in discretionary assessments entry can only be made in case of obvious incorrectness of the assessment (Art. 132 para. 3 DBG; § 149 para. 4 StG/SO). The duty to provide reasons according to Art. 42 FSC requires precise explanations, which the appellant failed to demonstrate as a violation of federal law. General criticism and complaints regarding the alleged lack of competence of the canton of Solothurn are insufficient. Also, submissions regarding the statute of limitations of the tax claim were legally ineffective. It was clarified that an extension to supplement the complaint reasoning is legally excluded (Art. 47 para. 1 FSC). Furthermore, the request for legal aid was to be rejected due to the futility of the complaint.
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court did not admit the complaint and rejected the request for legal aid, imposing the court costs on the appellant.
9F_8/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning revision of cost coverage in health insurance
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, was insured with Assura-Basis SA for compulsory health insurance. After disputes over an invoice amount of CHF 50.05 (analysis and administrative costs), the cantonal court confirmed the cost coverage. A complaint against this was dismissed by the Federal Supreme Court (judgment 9C_540/2025). A.________ requested revision of this judgment.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_320/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning legal aid
Summary of the Facts
The Zurich-Sihl public prosecutor's office did not initiate a criminal investigation. The complaint by A.________ against this decision at the Higher Court was not processed due to non-payment of procedural bail and late application for legal aid. A.________ then turned to the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_45/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning advance payment of costs
Summary of the Facts
The appellant lodged a complaint against the judgment of the Insurance Court of the Canton of Aargau dated November 12, 2025. Subsequently, she was requested to pay an advance on costs of CHF 1,000. Despite a granted deadline extension, the payment was not made.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_325/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning value-added tax for the period 2009
Summary of the Facts
A.________ lodged a complaint against a judgment of the Federal Administrative Court that did not enter into his request concerning value-added tax for the period from April 1, 2009 to September 30, 2009 due to non-payment of the advance on costs. By his complaint to the Federal Supreme Court, A.________ requested the annulment of the lower court's judgment as well as further measures related to a debt collection procedure initiated against him (including maintaining the legal objection and deleting the debt collection).
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_295/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning denial and delay of justice
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ lodged a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court due to denial and delay of justice, as the Security Department of the Canton of Schwyz allegedly delayed or refused his request for the issuance of a super-provisional order of a construction stop. The complaint was submitted by mail after the legal submissions had previously been sent by email.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_1205/2023: Non-admission of the complaint concerning traffic rule violation and duty to inform of legal rights
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ is accused of exceeding the permitted maximum speed by 36 km/h on December 19, 2021, on Äussere Luzernerstrasse in U.________. A police interrogation took place on January 18, 2022, during which A.________ signed a pre-printed legal advice pursuant to Art. 158 CPC. After acquittal by the District Court of Zofingen, the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau sentenced A.________ to an unconditional fine of 120 daily rates of CHF 300 each.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4F_2/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning revision request of A.________ AG in liquidation
Summary of the Facts
The A.________ AG in liquidation filed a revision request against the judgment of the Federal Supreme Court of January 8, 2026 (4A_515/2025). It was requested to pay an advance on costs of CHF 1,000 within a certain deadline. After default, an extension was granted with the note that the court would not enter into the request if the advance was not paid. The extension was also not met. A later submission by the applicant, referring to an inadmissible complaint against Federal Supreme Court judgments, was disregarded.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_201/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning validation of a disability pension
Summary of the Facts
The appellant worked as a governess until 2020 and applied for benefits from the disability insurance (IV) due to depression. After medical assessments, including a multidisciplinary and a renewed psychiatric evaluation, the IV office rejected the pension application. The complaint before the cantonal social insurance court was dismissed. Before the Federal Supreme Court, the appellant demanded the granting of a full disability pension from 2020 or the remittance for further clarification.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4D_62/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning inadmissible lawsuit
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed an unquantified lawsuit against lawyer B.________ at the Civil Court of the Canton of Vaud on February 19, 2026. The court declared the lawsuit inadmissible by decision of February 23, 2026, due to missing quantified claims and lack of determination of subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the lawsuit. Subsequently, A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court on April 2, 2026.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9F_7/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning revision of a termination
Summary of the Facts
The appellant (A.________) was insured with Assura-Basis SA for compulsory health insurance and terminated her contract as of December 31, 2023. After initially accepting this termination, the insurer revoked its consent on May 29, 2024, arguing that outstanding premiums and other amounts (including an invoice of CHF 20.05 and administrative costs of CHF 30.00) were owed. The insurer then initiated a debt collection procedure, which was ultimately confirmed by the cantonal court and also by the Federal Supreme Court in judgment 9C_539/2025. The appellant then requested revision of this judgment.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_80/2024: Non-admission of the complaint concerning environmental impact assessment for flood protection project
Summary of the Facts
The judgment concerns a flood protection and revitalization project along the Reuss River in the Canton of Lucerne, developed for flood protection, ecological enhancement, and improvement of quality of life. BirdLife Switzerland filed a complaint against the project approval by the government council, arguing that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) was insufficient. The Cantonal Court of Lucerne dismissed the complaint, after which BirdLife Switzerland filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4D_59/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning admissibility of a complaint in the procedure of definitive debt enforcement
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed a complaint against the decision of the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau, which confirmed the dismissal of her complaint against a debt enforcement decision of the District Court of Zofingen.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_340/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning non-admission and legal aid
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed a complaint against a non-admission order of the Limmattal/Albis public prosecutor’s office as well as against the rejection of her legal aid request by the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_64/2024: Non-admission of the complaint concerning the water management project flood protection and renaturation of the Reuss
Summary of the Facts
The project "Flood Protection and Renaturation of the Reuss" in the Canton of Lucerne includes flood protection measures and renaturation initiatives along a 13 km stretch of the Reuss. After objections and project revisions, the project was approved by the government council in 2022. Nature and environmental protection organizations Aqua Viva and WWF Switzerland filed a complaint, in which they criticized, among other things, the insufficient restoration of the natural course of the Reuss and deficiencies in sediment management. This was dismissed by the Cantonal Court of Lucerne, which the complainants appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_97/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning asylum and extradition of an Azerbaijani national
Summary of the Facts
A.________, an Azerbaijani national, applied for asylum in Switzerland, which was rejected by the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM), but he was provisionally admitted. At the same time, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) rejected Azerbaijan's extradition request. The Federal Supreme Court did not admit the complaint against the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court, which confirmed the SEM decisions, since no pending extradition procedure existed.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_1360/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning placement in an open facility
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was sentenced on June 13, 2016, to 9 years imprisonment and an outpatient measure pursuant to Art. 63 SCC for the murder of his partner. Due to further offenses and a high risk of recidivism, the competent authorities ordered a stationary therapeutic measure under Art. 59 SCC. Against the decision of the Office of Execution of Sentences to place him in a closed institution, A.________ filed a complaint, as he demanded placement in an open facility.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_87/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning challenge motion
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, was excluded from the program at the Lucerne University of Applied Sciences due to failing the subjects "Mathematics 1B" and "Python Basics". After various legal remedies and a remittance to the Cantonal Court of Lucerne, also due to refusal of legal aid, the appellant filed a challenge motion against a cantonal judge and a court clerk, doubting their impartiality. The Cantonal Court rejected this challenge motion.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_371/2024: Non-admission of the complaint concerning building permit for a mobile communications installation
Summary of the Facts
In the municipality of U.________, a mobile phone antenna was approved in 1996, which has undergone several technical changes since. In 2021, C.________ AG received a permit to retrofit the installation, including new antennas. The complainants filed an objection, arguing that the changes would cause excessive non-ionizing radiation (NIS), and alternative sites were insufficiently examined. The Administrative Court of Graubünden dismissed the complaint, after which A.________ and B.________ filed a complaint in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_270/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning disability pensions after payment to social services
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ was granted a back payment of disability pensions of CHF 31,626 by the IV office of the Canton of Solothurn for the period from March 1, 2022, to April 30, 2025. This was paid in full to the social services of U.________ pursuant to an order dated May 15, 2025. The Insurance Court of the Canton of Solothurn confirmed the legality of this payment in its judgment of March 4, 2026. The appellant filed a complaint against this with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_322/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning rejection of the prosecutor's challenge
Summary of the Facts
The parents A.A.________ and B.A.________ filed multiple complaints against the staff of the hospital D.________ treating their son with health impairments. The complaints were dismissed by the responsible prosecutor Stephan Johner due to a non-admission order. The parents then requested his recusal, which was rejected by the lower court. They filed complaints against both the non-admission and the rejection of the challenge to the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4D_34/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning definitive debt enforcement
Summary of the Facts
The appellant challenged the decision of the Cour des poursuites et faillites of the Tribunal cantonal of the Canton of Vaud dated January 15, 2026, which dismissed his appeal against definitive debt enforcement. He justified the late filing of his complaint with a hospital stay.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_173/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning pension grant and disability pension
Summary of the Facts
An insured person (born 2000) suffered a traumatic brain injury in a traffic accident in July 2020, which hindered continuation of his education. The disability insurance (IV) granted various reintegration measures, leading to the grant of a full disability pension from July 2023. The insured appealed these decisions, and the lower court granted a pension of extraordinary amount (133⅓% of the minimum amount) retroactively from July 2021. The IV filed a complaint to the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_162/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning termination of tenancy
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, tenant A.________, had applied at the first-instance court for the nullity or annulment of the termination by landlords B.B.________ and C.B.________ as of December 31, 2024, alternatively for extension of the lease concluded in 2017. The court granted her a one-time extension of the tenancy until December 31, 2025 (District Court Siders judgment of July 29, 2025). The tenant appealed this judgment, which was dismissed by the Civil Court I of the Cantonal Court of Valais on March 12, 2026, as far as admissible. On April 13, 2026, the tenant filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_40/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning inadmissible submission and advance payment of costs
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed a complaint against a judgment of the II Civil Appeals Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Fribourg dated January 8, 2026, which declared his appeal against a decision of the president of the Labor Court of the Saanebezirk dated November 25, 2025, inadmissible. The Federal Supreme Court particularly dealt with the questions of observance of the deadline for a requested advance payment of costs and formal requirements for submissions.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_1050/2024: Non-admission of the complaint concerning alleged disloyal management of business
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and C.________ founded a company (B.________ SA) in 2009, which also included agricultural properties. C.________ was sole director until 2022. A main purpose of the company was to ensure long-term support for medical-social projects, especially in equine therapy, through the establishment of a foundation. A legal dispute arose among the parties over a lease contract from 2017, which C.________ concluded in favor of his son E.________. A.________ and the company accused C.________ of having created forged documents or concluded the lease contract under unfair conditions. The goal was the return of the properties.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_384/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning award of disposal contracts
Summary of the Facts
A.________ Sagl was awarded the contract by the municipal council of Savosa for the collection and disposal of green waste for the period 2025–2027 after fulfilling the award criteria and winning the tender. The second-placed B.________ SA challenged the award. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Ticino annulled the award because A.________ Sagl did not have the necessary building permit for its composting plant, which was required according to the tender documents. The contract was then awarded to B.________ SA.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_341/2023: Non-admission of the complaint concerning A.________ Sàrl in liquidation
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________ Sàrl (a company in liquidation), lodged a complaint against a decision of the Swiss Accident Insurance Institution (CNA) dated July 11, 2022, before the Cantonal Court of Valais. This court dismissed the complaint of A.________ Sàrl on April 19, 2023. A.________ Sàrl then filed a public law complaint with the Federal Supreme Court on May 24, 2023. During the pending Federal Supreme Court proceedings, A.________ Sàrl was dissolved by court decision and insolvency proceedings were stayed on April 15, 2024, due to lack of assets. On xxx May 2026, the company was deleted from the commercial register, which terminated its procedural capacity pursuant to Art. 14 CPC.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_246/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning pension payments
Summary of the Facts
A. The appellant (A.________) was informed by the cantonal disability insurance office (AI) that his pension between July 1 and December 31, 2025, would be reduced to 27.5% of a full pension and paid in full again from January 1, 2026. He raised objections in February 2026, in particular alleging violation of the right to be heard. B. In March 2026, he filed a complaint with the Cantonal Court of the Republic and Canton of Jura for denial of justice, as no formal decision had been made. He requested, among other things, resumption of pension payments and an order to the office to issue a formal decision immediately. C. In April 2026, the appellant filed another complaint with the Federal Supreme Court to accuse both the cantonal court and the office of denial of justice.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_436/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning inadmissible order of coercive measures
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a complaint against an order of the Tribunal of Coercive Measures of the Canton of Vaud (TMC) dated January 30, 2026. The complaint was declared inadmissible by the criminal chamber of the Cantonal Court of Vaud on March 3, 2026. A.________ then filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court on April 7, 2026.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_194/2024: Non-admission of the complaint concerning project approval for flood protection and renaturation of the Reuss
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, the cooperative corporation Root, challenges the project approval of the flood protection and renaturation project Reuss in the Canton of Lucerne. This project includes measures between the Reuss braid and the canton border to Aargau and Zug. The project aims at flood protection, renaturation and environmental care, but the agricultural lands affected include parts of the appellant’s property subject to expropriation. The decision of the Lucerne government council as well as the decision of the Lucerne Cantonal Court confirming the project approval are challenged.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_1347/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning non-admission of a criminal investigation due to alleged false expert report
Summary of the Facts
The appellants, A.________ and B.________, filed in 2022 a request for precautionary evidence to investigate slope instabilities of their property and the neighboring property. In this procedure, the appointed expert issued a report that the appellants criticized as flawed and biased. They unsuccessfully sued at the Civil District Court Basel-Landschaft West, which rejected the request for replacement by a new expert report and closed the procedure. Subsequently, a criminal complaint was filed with the Zurich-Limmat public prosecutor’s office for an allegedly false expert report (Art. 307 SCC), which was not pursued. The non-admission was challenged by the appellants up to the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_154/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning premature enforcement of a first-instance judgment
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and C.________ were ordered by decision of the Tribunal des baux et loyers of the Canton of Geneva dated December 4, 2025, to immediately vacate rented commercial premises and a parking space. They were additionally jointly ordered to pay CHF 59,655.55 to the landlord, Société B.________ SA. They filed appeal and complaint against this decision on February 2, 2026. The president of the Chambre des baux et loyers of the Cour de justice of the Canton of Geneva ordered premature enforcement of the judgment on March 12, 2026. A.________ then filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court, which was accompanied by a request dismissal for precautionary measures.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.