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 further judgments, you will find a summary of the facts in each case. 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 legal fields.
7B_602/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning recusal of an expert
Summary of the facts
A.________ and C.________ are suspected by the Zurich-Limmat Public Prosecutor's Office of fraud, in that they allegedly unlawfully received benefits from the disability insurance. In the course of the criminal investigation, Dr. med. B.________ was commissioned to prepare a medical-psychiatric expert report. After she recommended preparing separate expert reports for the accused and expanding the questionnaire, both accused filed recusal motions against the expert. The Zurich Cantonal Court dismissed the motions, whereupon A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court, alleging, among other things, a violation of the right to be heard and the prohibition of bias in recusal law.
Summary of the considerations
E.1: The complaint is in principle admissible against the independently opened interlocutory decision on a recusal request pursuant to Art. 92 FPC. The requirements for a ruling on the merits are met, so the complaint must be admitted. A request for additional file review was rejected because the inclusion did not provide any additional benefit for the decisive question. E.2: The right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 BV) and the obligation to state reasons were not violated. The lower court examined the submissions as a whole and sufficiently justified its decision. E.3: The alleged arbitrary finding of fact is not present. The lower court reasonably concluded that the expert left the assessment open because she requested further files. E.4: The expert was not biased. Her recommendation to expand the expert mandate did not objectively give the appearance of bias. The decision on the mandate remained with the Public Prosecutor's Office, and the expert did not make any legal or substantive anticipation. The wording and the reference to procedural economy also do not change this.
Summary of the dispositive
The complaint was dismissed, the request for legal aid was also dismissed, and the court costs of CHF 1,200 were imposed on the complainant.
4A_368/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning legal opening
Summary of the facts
The complainant was ordered by the Aargau Cantonal Court to pay CHF 46,120.50 after the court upheld the complaint of the respondent and granted definitive legal opening. The complainant filed a complaint against this decision with the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the considerations
- E.1: The Aargau Cantonal Court upheld the complaint of the compensation office and granted legal opening for CHF 46,120.50. - E.2.1 and 2.2: The submission of 6 July 2026 was filed in due time but was incomplete because the complaint reasoning was missing. A supplementation after the complaint deadline is inadmissible. - E.3: The complaint was not signed personally, and the complainant failed to remedy the signature defect within the deadline. - E.4: Moreover, the complaint obviously did not meet the reasoning requirements pursuant to Art. 42 para. 2 FPC. - E.5: The court costs are imposed on the complainant, as he lost the proceedings and the respondent is not entitled to compensation.
Summary of the dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court did not admit the complaint and imposed court costs of CHF 500 on the complainant.
5A_681/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning withdrawal of the complaint
Summary of the facts
The complainant had filed complaints against the debt enforcement office Embrachertal as well as against decisions of the Bülach District Court and the Zurich Cantonal Court. After the Federal Supreme Court requested him to pay a cost advance, he withdrew the complaint.
Summary of the considerations
- E.1: The complainant filed various complaints against decisions of the lower courts. On 15 July 2026 he filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court but withdrew it on 30 July 2026. - E.2: The proceedings are discontinued as resolved by withdrawal of the complaint pursuant to Art. 32 para. 2 FPC. - E.3: Due to the minor effort, no court costs are imposed (Art. 66 para. 1 FPC).
Summary of the dispositive
The proceedings are discontinued as resolved by withdrawal of the complaint and no court costs are imposed.
5A_741/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning guardianship
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________ is supervised by the Child and Adult Protection Authority (KESB) Basel-Stadt within the framework of a representative guardianship with asset management. With a submission to the Appellate Court of the Canton Basel-Stadt, she raised various concerns, including prohibitions against her guardian and allegations of official misconduct. The Appellate Court did not admit the submission for lack of jurisdiction and forwarded it to the KESB. A.________ caused confusion with a renewed submission to the Federal Supreme Court by using different names.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_555/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning partial revision of spatial planning
Summary of the facts
A.________ filed a complaint in public law matters against a judgment of the Graubünden Cantonal Court dated 25 August 2025, which concerned the partial revision of spatial planning "Watercourse Areas". After statements from the involved parties and authorities, including the Federal Office for the Environment, A.________ withdrew his complaint unconditionally on 8 July 2026 as the parties had reached a settlement.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_733/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning delay and denial of justice
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________ AG filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court for delay and denial of justice against the Aargau Cantonal Court, 1st Chamber (respondent). The complaint was based on an appeal procedure (ZOR.2026.30), which the complainant initiated after the dismissal of her claims by the Zofingen District Court. Various submissions of the complainant led to repeated procedural delays, after which the Federal Supreme Court opened the proceedings.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_322/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning building permit and zone réservée
Summary of the facts
A.________ SA planned to build five villas, garages, and two swimming pools on three plots in the municipality of St-Gingolph. After initial approval by the cantonal authorities, the responsible municipal authority rejected the project but later, after expiry of certain deadlines, declared all affected plots as "zone réservée". Despite the later issuance of the building permit by the municipality, the State Council of the Canton of Valais revoked it because the project was incompatible with the zone réservée. Based on the State Council's judgment, the Valais Cantonal Court also dismissed the complaint of A.________ SA.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_267/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning 2023 tax assessment
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________, a German national residing in Switzerland, submitted her tax return for the year 2023 in August 2024 and appointed B.________ AG as her representative in tax matters. However, the tax assessment for the 2023 tax year was sent directly to the complainant and not to the representative. The representative filed a late objection on 8 January 2026 on the grounds that the delivery of the tax assessment to the complainant constituted irregular service. The restoration of the deadline was also requested.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4D_98/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning cost advance
Summary of the facts
A complainant filed a complaint against a decision of the Solothurn Cantonal Court concerning tenant eviction. The Federal Supreme Court repeatedly unsuccessfully requested him to pay a cost advance.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_188/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning disability pension in accident insurance
Summary of the facts
An insured person suffered an accident in 2020 that led to complete incapacity to work. Allianz Suisse refused him the pension after stabilization of his condition but granted a compensation for loss of integrity of 40%. The cantonal court awarded him a disability pension of 33%. Allianz Schweiz filed a complaint against this decision.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_165/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning obligation to pay by accident insurance in case of degenerative health impairment
Summary of the facts
The complainant, born in 1959, was insured with Solida Versicherungen AG against the consequences of accidents. After an accident in 2011 in which she injured, among other things, her right knee, medical benefits were initially granted. In 2020, the insurance company, based on new medical reports, determined that the knee injury was degenerative and stopped benefits retroactively as of 11 July 2011. After the lower court (Administrative Court of the Canton of Thurgau) confirmed this cessation of benefits, a complaint was filed with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_633/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning calculation of subsistence minimum
Summary of the facts
The debt enforcement office Olten-Gösgen calculated the complainant's subsistence minimum on 22 January 2026 and seized the amount exceeding CHF 2,450, namely CHF 302. Against this decision, the complainant filed a complaint on 9 February 2026, which was dismissed by the supervisory authority for debt enforcement and bankruptcy of the Canton of Solothurn by judgment of 12 June 2026. The complainant then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court with a civil law complaint.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_21/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning interlocutory decision on provisional evidence
Summary of the facts
The condominium owners' association A.________ filed an application with the Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich for provisional evidence pursuant to Art. 158 CPC. It concerned the investigation of various construction defects in a residential and commercial building. The lower court ordered partial supplementary expert reports but rejected other motions and set a cost advance. The complainant filed a civil complaint against this interlocutory decision and requested the complete execution of her supplementary and explanatory questions as well as exemption from the cost advance.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_794/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning non-admission in criminal proceedings
Summary of the facts
The complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court against a decision of the Bern Cantonal Court dated 11 June 2026. The Cantonal Court had dismissed the complaint against a non-admission order of the Regional Public Prosecutor's Office Oberland dated 20 May 2026, insofar as it admitted it at all. The subject of the proceedings was the question of sufficient reasoning of the complaint and the standing to complain.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_603/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning recusal request against expert
Summary of the facts
The Zurich-Limmat Public Prosecutor's Office is conducting a criminal investigation against A.________ and C.________ on suspicion of unlawful receipt of disability insurance benefits. Dr. med. B.________ was commissioned with the psychiatric assessment. A.________ and C.________ filed recusal motions against the expert, which were dismissed by the Zurich Cantonal Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4D_70/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning definitive legal opening
Summary of the facts
A.________ (complainant) was ordered in a previous Federal Supreme Court judgment to pay party compensation of Fr. 4,000 to C.________. She assigned her claim through several assignments to the lawyers, including B.________ (respondent), as payment. B.________ initiated debt enforcement proceedings against A.________, who filed an objection. The Zug Cantonal Court granted definitive legal opening for Fr. 4,000 plus interest with decision of 4 November 2025. The Zug Cantonal Court dismissed the debtor's complaint against this decision on 17 March 2026, insofar as it admitted it.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_76/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning full disability pension
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________ first registered with the disability insurance (IV) in 2011 and received no entitlement. In 2021, he registered again with a lung disease. The IV office granted reintegration measures that failed. Based on a multidisciplinary expert report (estimmed AG, 2025), the IV office granted a disability pension of 30% of a full pension starting 1 January 2024. The Nidwalden Administrative Court amended this by bringing forward the pension start date to 1 November 2022. A.________ requested a full disability pension before the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_927/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning withdrawal of the complaint
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________, a lawyer, filed a complaint against a decision of the lower court, the Chambre pénale de recours of the Cour de justice of the Canton of Geneva. During the ongoing proceedings, however, he withdrew his complaint.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_536/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning supervisory complaint and official misconduct
Summary of the facts
A.________ and B.________ AG filed a supervisory complaint with the Thurgau Cantonal Court on 4 May 2026, based on allegations of official misconduct and document forgery from 2009. The Cantonal Court did not admit it for lack of jurisdiction and insufficient reasoning by circular decision of 7 May 2026. The complainants then filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court on 10 June 2026.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5D_29/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning application for waiver of court costs
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________ filed an application for waiver of procedural costs of CHF 500 imposed on him by the Solothurn Cantonal Court. This application was rejected by the Cantonal Court. The complainant then filed a subsidiary constitutional complaint with the Federal Supreme Court and also requested suspensive effect and legal aid.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_682/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning debt enforcement
Summary of the facts
The matter concerned a debt enforcement against the complainant by the debt enforcement office Embrachertal. The payment order was served by police on 16 January 2026. The legal remedies taken by the complainant against the payment order were dismissed by both the Bülach District Court (decision of 25 March 2026) and the Zurich Cantonal Court (judgment of 19 June 2026), insofar as they admitted them. The complainant filed a complaint against the Cantonal Court's judgment with the Federal Supreme Court but withdrew it on 30 July 2026.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4D_72/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning legal opening and recusal
Summary of the facts
The complainant challenged a decision of the Aargau Cantonal Court, which granted definitive legal opening of Fr. 4,695 plus interest and dealt with two recusal requests. The complainant filed numerous motions before the Federal Supreme Court, including declarations of judgments as null, suspension of proceedings, damages, and suspension of collection measures.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_316/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning definitive legal opening over CHF 63,823.63
Summary of the facts
The complainant challenged the granting of definitive legal opening over an amount of CHF 63,823.63 to the respondent, a German health insurance company represented by the Swiss compensation office. After the St. Gallen Cantonal Court dismissed the complaint in the legal opening procedure, he filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_571/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning provisional placement of a juvenile
Summary of the facts
The juvenile prosecution authority of the Unterland in the Canton of Zurich ordered closed inpatient observation pursuant to Art. 9 para. 1 JStG in February 2026 and temporarily placed the 16-year-old complainant in the youth department of Zurich West prison. The goal was to bridge the time until a suitable observation place was available. The complainant unsuccessfully challenged this measure before the Zurich Cantonal Court. He also requested before the Federal Supreme Court a declaration of the unlawfulness of the deprivation of liberty and appropriate compensation.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_146/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning provisional legal opening with disputed capacity of the debtor
Summary of the facts
The complainant requested provisional legal opening based on six loan agreements between March and June 2023, which the respondent had signed. The KESB had ordered protective measures over the respondent in September 2023. The respondent's capacity at the time of contract conclusion was questioned.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_276/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning circular decision related to a loan
Summary of the facts
The A.________ AG in liquidation (complainant) filed a civil complaint against a circular decision of the Thurgau Cantonal Court dated 31 March 2026, which dismissed an appeal of the complainant insofar as it admitted it. The proceedings originated from a dismissal of a recusal request and non-admission of an annulment action by the Arbon District Court due to lack of cost advances.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
13Y_1/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning cost collection
Summary of the facts
A.________ addressed the Finance Service of the Federal Supreme Court with several submissions, including an application for waiver or administrative write-off of court costs imposed on him in two previous complaint proceedings. Since the Finance Service did not issue a formal decision with information on legal remedies, A.________ filed a complaint with the Recourse Commission. He requested a finding that no contestable decision had yet been issued and instructions for formal processing of his application. The Recourse Commission did neither conduct a document exchange nor additional file review.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4D_79/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning inadmissible appeal
Summary of the facts
An employment law dispute between A.________ (employee) and B.________ SA (employer) led to a lawsuit before the property jurisdiction of the Canton of Vaud in autumn 2024. After the four interim motions filed by the employee led to advances of CHF 6,000, he challenged the corresponding decisions before the cantonal appeals authority (Chambre des recours civile des Tribunal cantonal). This declared his cantonal appeal inadmissible on 12 March 2026. A.________ filed a subsidiary constitutional complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_695/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning police custody and expulsion/stay-away order
Summary of the facts
The complainant was taken into police custody on 22 August 2024 at the City Police Regional Station City of Zurich after a confrontation, as he refused to hand over his ID and behaved aggressively according to the police. He was served a written expulsion/stay-away order. After unsuccessful contestation of these police measures before the coercive measures court and the Zurich Cantonal Court, he appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_734/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning denial and delay of justice
Summary of the facts
The complainant, D.________ AG, filed a complaint against the Aargau Cantonal Court for alleged denial and delay of justice. It was alleged that the Cantonal Court delayed the decision in the appeal procedure (ZOR.2026.31). The complaint was from the outset afflicted with formal defects. After multiple electronic submissions—initially without a valid electronic signature—the complainant finally submitted signed documents in due time. The Federal Supreme Court examined the complainant's submissions. It found the complaint insufficiently reasoned and containing polemical accusations. The complainant also made unsubstantiated claims of allegedly impending enforcement actions. Overall, the complaint was vexatious and obviously inadmissible.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_392/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning inadmissible super-provisional measures
Summary of the facts
The complainant (A.________) filed an application for super-provisional and precautionary measures in June 2026 with the Tribunal de première instance in Geneva, comprising 61 pages. By order of 11 June 2026, the court set a deadline of ten days for the complainant to submit a compliant application, otherwise it would not admit the application. The Civil Chamber of the Geneva Cantonal Court declared the complainant's appeal inadmissible on 6 July 2026 as no serious irreparable legal disadvantages within the meaning of Art. 319 lit. b No. 2 CPC could be demonstrated. The complainant then filed a civil complaint and a subsidiary constitutional complaint with the Federal Supreme Court, simultaneously requesting suspensive effect and legal aid.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_1400/2025: Non-admission of the complaint concerning cost allocation and compensation
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________ was in pre-trial detention due to criminal proceedings. The Bern Cantonal Court lifted the pre-trial detention and ordered a substitute measure. At the same time, the Cantonal Court decided on cost allocation and compensation for the official defense. A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court and requested adjustment of the cost regulation in favor of the Canton of Bern as well as compensation for incurred expenses.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.