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 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.
5A_736/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning maintenance contributions
Summary of the facts
A.________, father of the respondents B.________ (born 2004) and C.________ (born 2007), had challenged an order of the single judge of the Cour d'appel civile of the Tribunal cantonal of the Canton of Vaud. This had ordered a wage garnishment against A.________, according to which monthly maintenance contributions of CHF 930 and CHF 926 must be paid directly to B.________ and C.________.
Summary of the considerations
- **E.1:** The single judge of the Tribunal cantonal had on 9 June 2026 upheld the daughters’ appeal and amended the previous order of the president of the Tribunal civil de l'arrondissement de La Côte, who had originally rejected the daughters’ claim on 7 March 2025. - **E.3:** The Federal Supreme Court examined the observance of the appeal deadline pursuant to Art. 100 para. 1 BGG, according to which the deadline ends 30 days after service of the complete decision. Due to service on 17 June 2026, the deadline expired on 17 July 2026. The appeal submission on 30 July 2026 was therefore late. - **E.4:** The appeal was therefore to be declared inadmissible pursuant to the simplified procedure (Art. 108 para. 1 lit. a BGG).
Summary of the dispositive
The appeal is declared inadmissible, and a court fee is imposed without awarding party compensation.
1C_32/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning authorization to prosecute members of authorities
Summary of the facts
A lawyer (A.________) filed a criminal complaint against a professional guardian (B.________) and members of the Child and Adult Protection Authority (KESB) Region St. Gallen for coercion and incitement thereto. The background was a debt collection of CHF 4,000,000.– initiated on behalf of a ward. The indictment chamber of the Canton of St. Gallen refused the authorization to prosecute. The appellant filed an appeal in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the considerations
The appeal is admissible as it is a final decision of a last cantonal instance and there are no exclusion grounds. The Federal Supreme Court examines ex officio the observance of federal law and does not comment on merely appellate submissions. The factual findings of the lower court are only reviewed if they are manifestly incorrect. As far as the appellant requests authorization to prosecute certain respondents, sufficient and comprehensible reasons are lacking. Therefore, this part of the appeal is not admitted. The indictment chamber is a properly constituted and independent court that meets the requirements of Art. 6 para. 1 ECHR and Art. 30 para. 1 BV. Authorization to prosecute must be granted already at a lower probability of criminal conduct. However, there is a lack of sufficient indications of criminal behavior by respondent B.________ (debt collection to interrupt limitation). The debt collection initiated by the respondent is not abusive since it served to secure possible claims and interrupt limitation. The allegation of abuse of office pursuant to Art. 312 SCC is unfounded as there are no indications of misuse of official authority. The appellant's right to be heard was not violated. The lower court considered all essential submissions.
Summary of the dispositive
The appeal was rejected and the court costs were imposed on the appellant, without awarding party compensation.
1C_137/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning authorization to prosecute members of the Cantonal Police of St. Gallen
Summary of the facts
The appellant filed on 29 November 2025 a criminal complaint for abuse of office, coercion and violation of constitutional rights against employees of the Cantonal Police of St. Gallen and the Public Prosecutor's Office of St. Gallen. The background was a previous criminal proceeding against the appellant for violations of the Narcotics Act, which ended with an acquittal. This proceeding included among other things an unlawful house search, destruction of seized items and a forensic registration.
Summary of the considerations
1. **Admissibility of the appeal (E. 1):** - The appeal in public law matters pursuant to Art. 82 lit. a BGG is admissible as it concerns a final decision of a last cantonal instance. - The appellant, who claims his rights have been violated, is entitled to appeal. The other prerequisites for a decision on the merits are fulfilled. 2. **Scope of review and requirements (E. 2):** - The Federal Supreme Court examines the violation of federal law, international law, and cantonal constitutional law. The application of cantonal law only takes place if corresponding complaints are sufficiently substantiated. It relies on the facts established by the lower court unless there is a manifestly incorrect finding of fact. 3. **Function of the authorization requirement (E. 3):** - The authorization requirement protects members of authorities from unjustified prosecution and ensures the functioning of state organs. Authorization is only denied if the criminal complaint is manifestly unfounded and there are no indications of criminally relevant conduct. 4. **Assessment of the criminal complaint (E. 4):** - **Abuse of office (E. 4.1):** Fulfillment of the offense of abuse of office requires (conditional) intent. No indications of intentional unlawful conduct by the accused could be established. - **Coercion (E. 4.2):** Intent is also required for coercion. No indications of unlawful behavior in subjective terms could be established. - **Arguments of the appellant (E. 4.3-E. 4.5):** The Federal Supreme Court found no indications of conditional intent and deemed the appellant’s complaint that the lower court violated federal law insufficiently substantiated. 5. **Conclusion (E. 5):** - The lower court did not violate federal law by refusing authorization to prosecute.
Summary of the dispositive
The appeal was dismissed and no court costs were imposed. No party compensation was awarded.
5A_752/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning garnishment announcement
Summary of the facts
The appellant lodged an appeal on 6 July 2026 against a garnishment announcement by the Debt Collection Office District Weinfelden, which the District Court Weinfelden dismissed on 27 July 2026. Subsequently, the Higher Court of the Canton of Thurgau on 30 July 2026 rejected a request for suspensive effect and declared the appeal nonetheless hopeless, referring to lack of legitimate interest and insufficient reasoning. The appellant filed an appeal in civil matters with the Federal Supreme Court on 5 August 2026.
The full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.