Latest Judgments of the Federal Supreme Court
Here you will find the most recent judgments of the Federal Supreme Court (BGer) 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 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 areas of law.
8C_3/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning retroactive pension cancellation and recovery
Summary of the facts
The appellant (A.________), a physician born in 1970, was supported by the IV office of the canton of Zurich with a full disability pension from 2011. In 2021, she reported a breast cancer diagnosis. Subsequently, the IV office reviewed her pension entitlements and decided in 2024 to cancel the pension retroactively as of 1 June 2017 and to reclaim payments already made amounting to CHF 180,088.-. The appellant then filed a complaint with the Social Insurance Court of the canton of Zurich, which rejected the claim. The appellant appealed this decision to the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the considerations
The procedure is governed by the general principles of the Federal Supreme Court Act (Art. 95 et seq. FSupCA). The dispute concerned the legality of the pension cancellation and its recovery. The lower court correctly set out the legal basis and the requirements for pension revision (Art. 17 ATSG, Art. 88bis IVV). The lower court found that the appellant’s degree of disability had significantly changed due to a new employment as chief physician from 2013, so that from 2017 no pension entitlement existed. A breach of the reporting obligation was also established. The appellant claimed defects in the reminder and reflection period procedure, which would exempt her from the reporting obligation. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed this objection. The issue of the valid career (possible employment as chief physician) and valid income was not finally assessed due to new evidence and incorrect consideration of the job offer by the lower court. The calculation of the invalidity income for 2021 and 2022 by the lower court was contrary to federal law because it did not refer to the extract from the individual account (IK). The further claims concerning pension cancellation, breach of reporting obligation, and recovery were returned to the lower court for a new decision.
Summary of the dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court partially upheld the appeal and set aside the lower court’s judgment, referring the matter back for a new decision. The court costs were imposed on the IV office, which also had to compensate for the proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court.
7B_351/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning non-admission of criminal complaints and recusal request
Summary of the facts
The appellant filed several appeals against decisions of the Higher Court of the canton of Schaffhausen. Two of these decisions concerned the non-admission of appeals against the non-admission of criminal complaints by the public prosecutor’s office of the canton of Schaffhausen, and one decision concerned the non-admission of a recusal request against all members of the Higher Court.
Summary of the considerations
- E.1: The Higher Court did not admit the appeals against the non-admission decisions of the public prosecutor’s office and the recusal request. The appellant brought complaints in criminal matters to the Federal Supreme Court. - E.2: The appeals were handled in the language of the contested decision, as required by Art. 54 para. 1 FSupCA. - E.3: The proceedings were consolidated into one decision pursuant to Art. 71 FSupCA in conjunction with Art. 24 para. 2 lit. b CCP. - E.4.1: The two appeals against the Higher Court’s decisions of 10 February 2026 are inadmissible, as there is no civil claim justifying complaints in criminal matters (Art. 81 para. 1 lit. b no. 5 FSupCA). These appeals are not admitted under the simplified procedure. - E.4.2: The appeal against the Higher Court’s decision of 24 February 2026 does not meet the requirements for reasoning, as it contains only appellate criticism. This appeal is also not admitted. - E.4.3: The Federal Supreme Court’s reasoning is limited to stating the grounds of inadmissibility pursuant to Art. 108 para. 3 FSupCA. - E.5: The requests for legal aid are dismissed due to the hopelessness of the claims. Court costs are assessed according to the appellant’s financial situation. - E.6: The appellant is warned that vexatious or abusive submissions will be inadmissible in the future.
Summary of the dispositive
The proceedings are consolidated, the appeals are not admitted, and the requests for legal aid are dismissed. The court costs were imposed on the appellant.
8C_224/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning reimbursement of illness-related transport costs
Summary of the facts
A.________, a recipient of supplementary benefits (EL), applied for reimbursement of illness-related transport costs at the Social Insurance Institution of the canton of Aargau (SVA). Due to an alleged denial or delay of justice by the SVA, A.________ filed a complaint with the Insurance Court of the canton of Aargau, which was dismissed as moot because the SVA had meanwhile issued a decision. A.________ appealed this ruling of the Insurance Court to the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the considerations
E.1: The contested decision of the cantonal court is a final decision of a public nature, so the appeal in public law matters is generally admissible. E.2: The Federal Supreme Court examines the legal situation ex officio but limits itself to the legal issues complained of, unless obvious errors exist. E.3: The subject matter of this procedure is exclusively whether the lower court lawfully dismissed the appeal due to mootness. The lower court found that the disputed decision had already been issued and thus no longer a legitimate interest in the review of the complaint existed. E.4.1: The appellant’s arguments did not call into question the lower court’s legal opinion. A review of the substantive claim will take place in later proceedings. The lower court’s approach does not violate the right to be heard or other federal law principles. E.4.2: Non-admission of the request to establish delay or denial of justice is correct, as no current interest in legal protection existed. E.5: The appeal is obviously unfounded and is resolved in the simplified procedure pursuant to Art. 109 para. 2 lit. a FSupCA. The request for legal aid is rejected due to hopelessness. E.6: Court costs are imposed on the appellant.
Summary of the dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, rejected the request for legal aid, and imposed the court costs on the appellant.
1C_188/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning building permit for administrative building
Summary of the facts
A building company (E.________ SA) applied to the Municipio Stabio for approval of a three-story administrative building with underground parking and outdoor parking spaces, which exceeded the permissible development coefficient. An area deficit was to be compensated by transfer from the neighboring property (yyy). After the permitting procedure and oppositions, the building permit was revoked by the State Council of the canton of Ticino. The Administrative Court approved the building projects under new conditions, after which neighbors filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
4A_128/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning definitive legal enforcement
Summary of the facts
The procedure concerns a civil law appeal by A.A.________ against a decision of the Civil Chamber of the cantonal court of Valais concerning definitive legal enforcement. The appellant had the appeal text signed by her husband, who is not a licensed attorney.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
6B_1005/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning traffic rule violations
Summary of the facts
The cantonal court of Schwyz convicted the appellant at second instance for intentional gross violation of traffic rules by insufficient distance while driving in a queue and intentional simple violation of traffic rules by speeding on the highway. It imposed a suspended fine of 20 daily rates of CHF 270.– each and a fine of CHF 1,530.–.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
4D_75/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning delay in justice
Summary of the facts
The appellant filed a complaint due to delay in justice in procedure SB.2026.179, which is being handled before the Court of Appeal of the canton of Basel-Stadt under number BEZ.2026.22. He claims that despite multiple submissions no substantive decision has been made and thus his right to be heard within a reasonable time has been violated.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
9C_157/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning review of the decision of the Insurance Court of the canton of Solothurn
Summary of the facts
A.________, represented by his attorney, requested review of a decision of the Insurance Court of the canton of Solothurn. This court had dismissed the proceedings as moot due to the repeal of the contested objection decision by the Mutuel Krankenversicherung AG. A.________ appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, requesting among other things remand to the lower court and granting of legal aid.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
4A_541/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning claim for payment
Summary of the facts
B.________ SA had filed a lawsuit against A.________ SA at the court of first instance (Pretore of Bellinzona), which was dismissed on 16 April 2025. Subsequently, the II Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the canton of Ticino partially upheld the claim by decision of 24 September 2025 and ordered A.________ SA to pay CHF 30,000.--. A.________ SA appealed this decision to the Federal Supreme Court on 27 October 2025, requesting full dismissal of the claim. During the proceedings, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
9C_229/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning health insurance
Summary of the facts
The appellant, an insured person born in 2015 and cared for by her mother, appealed against the decision of the Social Insurance Court of the canton of Zurich dated 2 March 2026. This court did not admit the appeal against a reconsideration decision of her health insurance, as the original objection decision had been revoked to conduct further investigations.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
7B_528/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning violation of personal rights
Summary of the facts
A.________ filed an appeal against a decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Geneva cantonal court, which had dismissed the appeal against a non-admission order by the Geneva public prosecutor. The appellant alleged a violation of his personal rights through statements by third parties, described these as criminal attacks on his personality, and claimed damages for suffered immaterial harm.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
6B_1005/2024: Higher admission of the appeal concerning filing of appeal
Summary of the facts
A.________ was convicted on 7 May 2024 by the criminal court of the Saanen district for theft by professional conduct, property damage, trespassing, and illegal stay. The court sentenced him to 12 months imprisonment, of which 6 months were unconditional and 6 months conditional (with a probation period of 5 years). Additionally, a mandatory expulsion order for 5 years was imposed. An appeal against this was not heard by the Appeal Chamber of the cantonal court of Fribourg on 18 November 2024 due to late filing.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
1C_619/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning confirmation of promotion in public service
Summary of the facts
A.________, a police officer in the canton of Geneva, was promoted in February 2019 to sergeant-major and in March 2022 to head of the Migration and Repatriation Brigade (with the rank of lieutenant). The confirmation of his promotion was conditional on meeting certain goals within a probation period of two to a maximum of 24 months. In several evaluations, his superiors found serious deficiencies in his leadership duties. Despite objections to these evaluation reports, his promotion was not confirmed, and he was subsequently demoted to a lower position.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
4A_156/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning preservation of evidence
Summary of the facts
A disputed "preservation of evidence" between A.________ (appellant) and B.________ SA (respondent) was the subject of the proceedings. The appellant requested the lower court to order an additional expert opinion, which was rejected by the competent judge. The appeal filed thereafter was deemed inadmissible by the cantonal instance, as the appellant did not claim a serious irreparable disadvantage according to Art. 319 lit. b no. 2 CPC.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
7B_291/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning objection against a penal order
Summary of the facts
The appellant, A.________, was convicted by the public prosecutor’s office of Graubünden on 4 November 2024 for multiple threats and insults. Since the objection against the penal order was filed late, the Regional Court Plessur declared it final. The Higher Court of the canton of Graubünden dismissed the appellant’s appeal. Before the Federal Supreme Court, the appellant requested, among other things, the recusal of a federal judge and a renewed review of the penal order.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.