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 with facts, considerations, and dispositives. For the other 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.
1C_397/2024: Non-admittance of the complaint concerning building permit dispute related to artificial turf pitch
Summary of the facts
The political municipality of Uitikon applied for the construction of an artificial turf pitch in the recreational zone "Sürenloh". After submission of incorrect documents and additional requests by the cantonal building authority, disagreement arose regarding jurisdiction and the obligation to compensate crop rotation areas. The case went through various instances, with the administrative court most recently issuing a remand decision, which the Federal Supreme Court has now not admitted.
Summary of the considerations
E.1.1: The basis of the proceedings is a final-instance remand decision in a public-law matter. The complaint is directed against an interim decision, so the requirements of Art. 92 and 93 BGG must be examined. E.1.2: According to Art. 92 para. 1 BGG, a complaint is only admissible against independently opened preliminary and interim decisions concerning jurisdiction or recusal. In the present case, however, the jurisdiction question was already definitively settled, and recourse to Art. 92 para. 2 BGG is excluded. E.1.3: The examination pursuant to Art. 93 BGG shows that neither an irreparable disadvantage was demonstrated (lit. a) nor could significant procedural effort be saved (lit. b). Substantiation obligations of the complainant were not fulfilled. E.2: The complaint is therefore inadmissible.
Summary of the dispositive
The complaint was dismissed, no court costs were charged, and no party compensation was awarded.
8C_370/2026: Non-admittance of the complaint concerning the suspension of entitlement to unemployment benefits
Summary of the facts
The complaint is directed against a judgment of the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich dated 31.03.2026, which confirmed a suspension of entitlement to unemployment benefits due to self-inflicted unemployment for a period of 36 days pursuant to Art. 30 para. 1 lit. a AVIG.
Summary of the considerations
1. (E.1) According to Art. 95 and 97 BGG, only specific complaints are admissible with the complaint. It is stated that appellate criticism or mere assertions of errors are insufficient. 2. (E.2) The cantonal court confirmed the suspension of entitlement because it concluded self-inflicted unemployment. The lower court argued with repeated violations of the duty of loyalty and warnings. 3. (E.3) The complainant did not raise sufficient complaints demonstrating that the factual findings were obviously incorrect or illegal. Furthermore, there was a lack of engagement with case law (e.g., judgment 8C_165/2015). 4. (E.4) Due to the lack of a fact-related reasoning, the complaint is not admitted in simplified proceedings (Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b BGG). 5. (E.5) No court costs are charged (Art. 66 para. 1 sentence 2 BGG).
Summary of the dispositive
The dispositive provides that the complaint is not admitted and that no court costs are charged. Thus, the judgment of the Social Insurance Court is confirmed without imposing further costs.
8C_714/2025: Non-admittance of the complaint concerning disability pension
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________, born in 1993, applied for disability insurance benefits after an accident in July 2017. Following medical and legal clarifications, the IV office of the Canton of Zurich granted her a limited full pension from October 2018 to January 2021 and an unlimited full pension from January 2023 onwards. The complaint filed against these decisions at the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich led to a partial approval, extending the entitlement to the limited pension until April 2021. The complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court demanding an extension of the pension entitlement, especially for the period from May 2021 to December 2022.
Summary of the considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examines legal violations ex officio, whereby the fact finding of the lower court is generally binding, except in cases of obvious errors or legal violations. The subject matter of the proceedings is particularly whether the complainant is entitled to a pension for the period from May 2021 to December 2022. The legal bases for pension entitlement and the evaluation of medical expert opinions were correctly presented. It is added that the analogous application of Art. 17 para. 1 ATSG is permissible for retroactive granting of a graduated pension. The lower court relied on various expert reports, especially the ABI report of 27 June 2022, which attested 80% work capacity as of February 2021. The degree of disability for the period from May 2021 to December 2022 was set at 32%, excluding pension entitlement. The complainant's criticism of the medical expert opinions, especially the assessment by the lower court, was not considered convincing. The expert assessments were deemed comprehensive and coherent. A deduction from the standard salary was rejected because the physical limitations were already accounted for in the job profile, and the other asserted reasons did not justify further deduction. The assessment of the lower court’s court costs and the reduced party compensation were deemed compliant with federal law.
Summary of the dispositive
The court rejected the complaint and imposed court costs of CHF 800.- on the complainant. The judgment was communicated to the competent parties and authorities for information.
8C_407/2026: Non-admittance of the complaint concerning recovery and offsetting of social assistance benefits
Summary of the facts
A.________ filed a complaint against the judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich dated 6 May 2026. This had confirmed a recovery of unduly received social assistance benefits amounting to CHF 8,554.75 as well as an offsetting with ongoing social assistance benefits, the latter limited to a duration of twelve months. The recovery was based on the assumption that A.________ had violated her reporting obligation by not reporting the non-enforcement of a rental share by relatives.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
6B_946/2024: Judgment on criminal conviction for rape, unlawful appropriation and expulsion from the country
Summary of the facts
A.________ was convicted by the Regional Court Maloja, inter alia, of rape, unlawful appropriation, pornography and multiple attempted fraudulent misuse of a data processing system to imprisonment and expulsion from the country. Upon appeal, the Cantonal Court of Graubünden amended the sentence and imposed a prison term of 30 months (partially conditional) as well as an eight-year expulsion from the country. A.________ filed a criminal appeal with objections inter alia to the assessment of facts, the expulsion and the composition of the lower court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_508/2026: Non-admittance of the complaint concerning denial of justice in handing over billing documents from debt enforcement proceedings
Summary of the facts
The complainant requested the Zurich Cantonal Court to hand over all billing documents related to debt enforcement proceedings since 2021. The Cantonal Court refused and pointed out to the complainant that there is no entitlement to the handing over or forwarding of files. The complainant appealed to the Federal Supreme Court due to this refusal and alleged denial of justice. She submitted several filings to the Federal Supreme Court, some of which did not meet the formal requirements.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
6B_350/2026: Federal Supreme Court judgment concerning murder, admissibility of evidence and effective defense
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.A.________ was accused of having killed his wife F.A.________ in December 2022 in their shared apartment while she was asleep. The Regional Court Bern-Mittelland found him guilty of murder in 2025 and sentenced him to 20 years imprisonment. The judgment was confirmed by the Bern Cantonal Court, whereupon the complainant filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_562/2026: Non-admittance of the complaint concerning legal aid in revision proceedings
Summary of the facts
The complainant filed a revision request against a decision of the Civil Court West. The proceedings were forwarded to the Cantonal Court Basel-Landschaft, which rejected her application for legal aid due to the futility of the revision request. The complainant requested the Federal Supreme Court to revoke this order, to grant legal aid for the revision proceedings as well as for the proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_563/2026: Non-admittance of the complaint concerning legal aid in revision proceedings
Summary of the facts
The complainant filed a revision request with the Civil Court West, which forwarded it for jurisdictional reasons to the Cantonal Court Basel-Landschaft. By order dated 12 May 2026, the Cantonal Court rejected the complainant’s application for legal aid for the revision proceedings on the grounds that the revision proceedings were deemed futile. The complainant requested the Federal Supreme Court to revoke this order and also to grant legal aid for the Federal Supreme Court proceedings.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_505/2026: Non-admittance of the complaint concerning seizure announcement and debt enforcement proceedings
Summary of the facts
The complainant was subjected to several debt enforcement proceedings, and the Zug debt enforcement office issued corresponding seizure announcements. She filed numerous complaints against these actions with the Zug Cantonal Court, which did not admit these filings. She then filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court, which was deemed obviously inadmissible.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
1C_85/2026: Non-admittance of the complaint concerning rent adjustment and claims for reimbursement
Summary of the facts
The complainant, A.________ SA, owner of a property in Geneva, carried out renovation work in one of her apartments in 2017 without authorization and subsequently significantly increased the annual rent. The work was later classified as requiring approval, leading to judicial review of the rent increase, a reimbursement claim in favor of the former tenants, and the imposition of an administrative fine.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_707/2026: Decision on the extension of pre-trial detention due to flight risk
Summary of the facts
The St. Gallen investigative office is conducting criminal proceedings against A.________ for attempted grievous bodily harm, assault and property damage in connection with a physical altercation. A.________ was arrested on 31 January 2026 and has been in pre-trial detention since then. A request for release was most recently denied by the regional coercive measures court, detention was extended until 30 July 2026, which was confirmed by the St. Gallen Cantonal Court’s indictment chamber.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_564/2026: Non-admittance of the complaint concerning legal aid in revision proceedings
Summary of the facts
The complainant filed a revision request against a previous decision of the Civil Court West, which was treated as the final cantonal instance by the Cantonal Court Basel-Landschaft. There, the application for legal aid was rejected due to the futility of the revision proceedings. The complainant requested the Federal Supreme Court to revoke the Cantonal Court’s order and to grant legal aid in the revision proceedings as well as before the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
6B_432/2025: Approval of the complaint concerning sentencing and crediting of unlawful detention conditions
Summary of the facts
The proceedings concern the sentencing of A.________, who was convicted inter alia of aggravated assault, fraudulent bankruptcy, false accusations, coercion and other offenses. The case also involves the question of considering unlawful detention conditions and violation of the acceleration requirement. The first instance sentenced A.________ to 24 months imprisonment, crediting 396 days of pre-trial detention and 7 days compensation for unlawful detention conditions. On appeal, the Vaud Cantonal Court increased the sentence to 43 months imprisonment. A.________ then filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court, challenging in particular the sentencing by the lower court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.