Latest Judgments of the Federal Supreme Court
Here you will find the most recent judgments of the Federal Supreme Court (FSCA) 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. 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 legal areas.
6B_477/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning commercial fraud
Summary of the Facts
The complainant appealed against the discontinuation of a criminal proceeding for commercial fraud by the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft. The Federal Supreme Court had to assess whether the complaint was filed in due time and whether a request for reinstatement of the deadline could be granted.
Summary of the Considerations
The Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft discontinued the criminal proceeding. The complainant filed an appeal and provisionally requested reinstatement of the deadline. The deadline for filing the appeal is 30 days after service of the contested decision (Art. 100 para. 1 FCSC Act). The deadline began on June 9, 2026, and ended on July 8, 2026. The submission was handed over to DHL in Germany on July 7, 2026, but only reached the Federal Supreme Court on July 9, 2026. According to Art. 48 para. 1 FCSC Act, handing over to DHL in Germany does not preserve the deadline. The complainant did not demonstrate that she was prevented without fault from filing the appeal in due time. Consequently, the request for reinstatement of the deadline is dismissed. Due to the delay, the appeal is not admitted.
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court did not admit the complaint and imposed the court costs on the complainant.
7B_1038/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning discontinuation of a criminal proceeding
Summary of the Facts
A complainant filed a complaint against the discontinuation of a criminal proceeding that concerned his treatment in a private hospital in the canton of Geneva between October and November 2017. The complainant argued that his medical treatment was faulty and that legal claims had arisen as a result.
Summary of the Considerations
- E.1: The complaint meets the requirements pursuant to Art. 90 and Art. 78 para. 1 FCSC Act and was filed in due time according to Art. 100 para. 1 FCSC Act. - E.1.2: The complainant was unable to sufficiently specify his alleged civil claims, especially regarding damage or immaterial damage (moral damage). Information on loss of income or long-term psychological effects is missing. Therefore, the standing pursuant to Art. 81 para. 1 lit. b no. 5 FCSC Act is lacking. - E.2: The complainant alleged a violation of the right to be heard concerning the insufficient reasoning of the cantonal decision. However, this objection concerns the substantive assessment of the lower court, making the complaint inadmissible in this respect as well.
Summary of the Dispositive
The complaint is declared inadmissible, the request for legal aid is dismissed, and the procedural costs are imposed on the complainant.
5A_683/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning threat of bankruptcy
Summary of the Facts
The complainant (A.________ SA) contested a threat of bankruptcy issued by the Debt Enforcement Office of Lugano in connection with a debt enforcement against B.________ SA. At the same time, she requested the granting of suspensive effect. The lower court, the president of the supervisory authority in debt enforcement and bankruptcy matters of the appellate court of the canton of Ticino, rejected this request because the appeal clearly had no prospect of success. The complainant then appealed the decision to the Federal Supreme Court and again requested suspensive effect and the annulment of the order. She alleged, among other things, a violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness and her right to be heard.
Summary of the Considerations
(1) The lower court relied on an uncontested decision of a lower instance, which recorded the complete withdrawal of a legal objection. Furthermore, the arguments brought forward by the complainant regarding non-payment of the debt did not fall within the competence of the Debt Enforcement Office. For these reasons, suspensive effect was not granted (E.1). (2) The Federal Supreme Court examined the admissibility of the complaint under Art. 93 para. 1 FCSC Act, since the contested order was qualified as an interim decision. It held that an irreparable disadvantage within the meaning of Art. 93 para. 1 lit. a FCSC Act did not have to be conclusively assessed, as the complaint was inadmissible in any case (E.3.1). (3) The complaint did not meet the strict requirements for reasoning under Art. 106 para. 2 FCSC Act, as the alleged constitutional rights were neither sufficiently specified nor plausibly explained. In particular, the complainant did not engage with the central finding of the lower court that the withdrawal of the legal objection was decisive and remained uncontested (E.3.2). (4) Due to the insufficient reasoning, the Federal Supreme Court declared the complaint manifestly inadmissible and decided it in summary proceedings pursuant to Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b FCSC Act (E.4).
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court decided not to admit the complaint and imposed the court costs on the complainant.
5A_745/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning provisional suspension of enforceability
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and B.________ are the joint parents of the child C.________. The Cantonal Court of Schaffhausen provisionally transferred the right to determine the child's place of residence to the father and regulated the mother's visitation rights and other measures. The mother appealed and requested the provisional suspension of enforceability. The Cantonal Supreme Court of Schaffhausen rejected this request due to lack of urgent justification. The mother then turned to the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_597/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning revision of wage garnishment
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, against whom debt enforcement proceedings are pending in the debt enforcement district Benken-Kaltbrunn-Schänis, filed a complaint against the revision of wage garnishment. The district court See-Gaster did not admit the complaint, and the Cantonal Court of St. Gallen dismissed the complaint insofar as it admitted it. The complainant then filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_344/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning custody arrangement for a child of unmarried parents
Summary of the Facts
The unmarried parents A.________ and B.________ dispute the custody allocation of their child C.________, born in 2021. After failed visitation arrangements, the Child and Adult Protection Authority (KESB) Arbon temporarily revoked the mother's right to determine the child's place of residence in 2024. In its final decision of August 7, 2025, the KESB transferred custody to the father. The mother requested the Federal Supreme Court to place the child back under her custody, to establish the child's residence with her, and to newly regulate the father's visitation rights.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_814/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning legal aid
Summary of the Facts
The complainant filed a criminal complaint against the decision of the Cantonal Supreme Court of Bern, which refused him legal aid and ordered a security deposit. The case concerned an appeal procedure against a discontinuation order of the Regional Public Prosecutor's Office Emmental-Oberaargau.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_685/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning non-initiation of criminal proceedings against B.________
Summary of the Facts
A. The Cantonal Prosecutor's Office for Economic Crimes of the canton of Bern decided on June 27, 2025, not to initiate criminal proceedings against B.________, who was accused of various economic crimes in connection with C.________ AG in liquidation and A.________ AG. B. The A.________ AG appealed this non-initiation. With a decision dated April 21, 2026, the Cantonal Supreme Court of Bern dismissed their complaint insofar as it admitted it. C. The A.________ AG then filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the annulment of the Cantonal Supreme Court's decision and the initiation of a criminal investigation against B.________.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_64/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning non-initiation order and recusal requests
Summary of the Facts
A.A. and B.A., the parents of a health-impaired child, had filed two complaints. The first complaint (7B_64/2026) was directed against a non-initiation order of the public prosecutor concerning the treatment of their child in hospital. The second complaint (7B_265/2026) concerned the rejection of their recusal requests against judges of the lower court. Both complaints related to their criticism of the medical treatment and what they considered unlawful restrictions of visitation rights.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_114/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning annulment of a declaration of bankruptcy
Summary of the Facts
The Federal Supreme Court dealt with a complaint by A.________ Sagl in liquidation against a cantonal decision which confirmed the declaration of bankruptcy over the company. The lower court, the Cantonal Supervisory Authority (Chamber for Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy of the Appellate Court of the canton of Graubünden), dismissed the company's complaint because it could not sufficiently credibly demonstrate its solvency.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
6B_878/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning forgery of official stamps
Summary of the Facts
The complainant was repeatedly convicted by the Cantonal Supreme Court of Aargau for forgery of official stamps (Art. 245 Swiss Criminal Code), most recently in the judgment of September 24, 2025. The complainant argued that he had merely reattached a fallen-off motorway vignette to his vehicle without being aware of any criminal act. The Federal Supreme Court had already annulled the first cantonal judgment on June 25, 2025, and remitted it for new assessment (6B_863/2024).
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_498/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning paternity suit
Summary of the Facts
The respondent (B.________) filed a paternity suit against the complainant (A.________) after reaching majority, after the child relationship with his legal father (the mother's husband) was annulled. The paternity suit was initially dismissed by the district court Werdenberg-Sarganserland for expiration. The Cantonal Court of St. Gallen upheld the suit, after which the complainant filed a civil complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_793/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning change of official defense counsel in criminal proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The complainant, A.________, requested the Cantonal Supreme Court of Thurgau to change his official defense counsel, which was rejected by order of May 19, 2026. The complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court requesting annulment of the order and appointment of a new official defense counsel.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4D_119/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning compensation in labor law proceedings
Summary of the Facts
In a labor law proceeding, the official defense counsel of A.________ was released upon request. The president of the competent court set compensation of CHF 1,447.15 on March 4, 2026. A.________ contested this decision with a submission to the Cantonal Court of Vaud. The civil appeals chamber of the Cantonal Court declared the complaint inadmissible on June 1, 2026. A later submission by A.________ dated July 2, 2026, was forwarded to the Federal Supreme Court, which examined the submission.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_864/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning lack of qualified electronic signature
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a criminal complaint against a decision of the Cantonal Supreme Court of Zurich concerning the procedure regarding an objection to a penal order. The electronically submitted complaint did not comply with the formal requirements of the Federal Supreme Court Act (missing qualified electronic signature).
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_493/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning appointment of a legal custodian pursuant to Art. 308 CC
Summary of the Facts
The sole custodial mother A.________ requested the Federal Supreme Court to annul the custodianship ordered by the Child and Adult Protection Authority (KESB) Innerschwyz for her daughter B.________, as she considered the requirements under Art. 308 Swiss Civil Code for this child protection measure not to be met. The lower court (Administrative Court of the canton of Schwyz) dismissed the mother's complaint and considered the establishment of the custodianship lawful and proportionate. The main problem consisted of organizational deficits of the mother, which could impair a stable care and daily structure for the child.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_803/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning non-initiation order
Summary of the Facts
The complainant filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Supreme Court against a decision of the Cantonal Supreme Court of Solothurn. This decision concerned the dismissal of a complaint against the non-initiation order of the public prosecutor's office of the canton of Solothurn.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_928/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning pre-trial detention
Summary of the Facts
The complainant was taken into pre-trial detention on suspicion of involvement in serious violations of the Federal Act on Narcotics (LStup), as well as violations of the Foreign Nationals Act (LEI) and other regulations. The coercive measures court extended the detention several times, most recently until July 25, 2026. The complainant appealed this decision, which was dismissed by the chamber for criminal complaints of the Cantonal Supreme Court of Bern. The Federal Supreme Court was to decide on a complaint against this decision.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_465/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning reinstatement of deadline
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ requested the Federal Supreme Court for an extension of the deadline and approval due to a hospital stay. On April 14, 2026, the Federal Supreme Court requested him to submit the contested decision by April 27, 2026, and to indicate whether a complaint file should be opened. At the same time, he was informed about the impossibility of extending statutory deadlines. After the deadline expired unused, the documents were returned to A.________. With a new submission dated July 13, 2026, A.________ requested the Federal Supreme Court to consider his complaint, as he was unable to meet the deadlines due to a stay abroad.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_152/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning exceptional authorization for school enrollment
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________, father of the child B.________, applied in January 2024 for an exceptional authorization to enroll his son B.________ in the Dubochet College (primary school Morges-Ouest) and not in the Charpentiers College (primary school Morges-Est). The first written refusal of this exceptional authorization was issued on January 18, 2024, by the school management of Morges-Est. After further correspondence and the child's enrollment in a private school for the 2024/25 school year, the matter was heard before the cantonal administrative court in November 2025. The administrative court dismissed the father's complaint in March 2026, after which the case was brought before the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_730/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning unsealing
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Supreme Court on June 4, 2026, against a decision of the coercive measures court of the canton of Basel-Landschaft dated May 29, 2026, which concerned the unsealing of items.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_916/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning security deposit and legal aid
Summary of the Facts
The complainant A.________ objected to an order of the public prosecutor's office requiring her to provide a security deposit of CHF 1,500 in the criminal proceedings for defamation, possibly slander. The Cantonal Supreme Court of Bern dismissed her complaint insofar as it admitted it, refused legal aid, and imposed procedural costs on her. Before the Federal Supreme Court, A.________ requested the annulment of the contested decision and the order of the public prosecutor's office, the extension of the criminal proceedings to the offense of forgery of documents, and the waiver of the security deposit.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.