Latest Judgments of the Federal Supreme Court
Here you will find the most recent judgments of the Federal Supreme Court (FSCD) from bger.ch. For the first three judgments, we present detailed summaries including 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 tailored to your legal fields.
12T_1/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning supervision of the Federal Administrative Court
Summary of the Facts
A minor asylum seeker (A.________), represented by the Protection Authority of the Ticino and Central Switzerland region, filed an appeal with the Federal Administrative Court on 21 February 2025 against a decision of the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) dated 12 February 2025, which revoked his refugee status. On 19 January 2026, he lodged a supervisory complaint for delay in proceedings with the Federal Supreme Court, as no decision had been issued in the procedure.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1 and E.2**: The Federal Supreme Court's supervision over the Federal Administrative Court is administrative in nature. It only intervenes in the case of structural organizational or administrative problems (E.2.2), and there is no party right derived from such a supervisory complaint (E.2.1). - **E.3**: At the time of the complaint, the procedure had been pending for over a year (E.3.1). Although cases of unaccompanied minors should be prioritized, this cannot always be adhered to in individual cases (E.3.2). However, there is no indication of a structural problem of the Federal Administrative Court, as a priority system according to law exists (E.3.3). The court noted that the decision in the case in question was rendered in the meantime on 4 March 2026 (E.3.5).
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal was dismissed, no court costs were charged, and the judgment was communicated to the parties.
8C_560/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning helplessness allowance
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________, born in 1975, is the mother of three children and has been completely unable to work since January 2016, mainly due to a schizoaffective disorder. She applied for disability insurance benefits as early as 2016 and additionally requested a helplessness allowance on 13 February 2020. This application was rejected by the IV office. The cantonal court, subsequently appealed to, confirmed the rejection by decision of 26 August 2025. The appellant filed an appeal against this decision to the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court first examines the formal requirements and declares the appeal admissible. It points out that it freely rules on questions of law but only reviews findings of fact to a limited extent. The legal foundations of helplessness according to Art. 9 LPGA and 42 LAI as well as the requirements for proof of helplessness and the evidentiary value of reports, especially of home visits, are presented. The cantonal instance found that the appellant's health restrictions do not affect the management of everyday tasks to such an extent that she depends on regular and substantial help or accompaniment as defined by the legislation. These findings were based on medical reports and the results of a home visit. The complaints of violation of the right to be heard and the right to a fair trial are examined. The Federal Supreme Court sees no procedural errors, as the cantonal court sufficiently considered the appellant's relevant arguments. The complaint that the investigator's report was biased and inaccurate was rejected. The appellant could not demonstrate any substantiated errors. The report met the legal requirements according to the lower instance. The limitations claimed by the doctor and the appellant are not deemed sufficient for entitlement to a helplessness allowance. The establishment of a curatorship was also not accepted by the Federal Supreme Court as a basis for the decision, as it occurred after the relevant time period and different standards for helplessness apply.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appellant's appeal is dismissed and the procedural costs are imposed on her.
5A_198/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning the revocation of curatorship
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________, subject to an existing curatorship, applied to the APEA for its revocation, which was rejected in the lower instance. In the present proceeding, he requested the disqualification of the judge and court clerk involved in the cantonal proceedings due to alleged procedural errors. During the ongoing proceedings, the curatorship was revoked by the APEA, rendering the original procedure moot.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the appellant still had a current and practical interest in the appeal. This was denied, as no relevant proceedings were pending nor was a virtual interest claimed. The court found that the procedural errors alleged (in particular the violation of the right to be heard due to the non-communication of relevant documents twice) did not establish facts indicating bias. Consequently, the appeal would have to be dismissed on the merits. The procedural costs were imposed on the appellant.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal is considered moot, the procedure is discontinued, and the procedural costs are imposed on the appellant.
4F_5/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning legal opening
Summary of the Facts
The underlying procedure concerned a judgment of the Federal Supreme Court (4D_8/2026) of 24 February 2026, in which the court did not admit an appeal against the judgment of the Zurich Cantonal Court of 7 January 2026 due to insufficient reasoning. The appellant (petitioner) requested by motion for revision the annulment of judgment 4D_8/2026, the dismissal of the legal opening request directed against him, and further measures (annulment of debt enforcement proceedings, reimbursement of paid amounts, no court costs). Additionally, he requested legal aid and an extension of the deadline for legal representation.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_65/2026: Upholding of the appeal concerning the disability pension of the accident insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________ suffered an accident (ankle fracture) on 21 August 2023 during his work as an automation operator, which caused long-lasting complaints (CRPS Type I) despite medical treatment. The Swiss Accident Insurance Institution (SUVA) refused a disability pension due to an insufficient loss of earning capacity (3%) by decision of 6 May 2025 and granted him only a 10% integrity compensation. The cantonal insurance court of the Canton of Ticino recognized him a disability pension of 13% on 10 December 2025. SUVA appealed this decision to the Federal Supreme Court.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_162/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning reimbursement of short-time work compensation
Summary of the Facts
The company A.________ SA was ordered to repay unlawfully received short-time work compensations amounting to CHF 160,233.80 because its time recording system was inadequate. Its subsequent request for waiver of the reimbursement was rejected by the competent cantonal authority and later by the lower instance. The main dispute concerned the lack of a systematic and comprehensible working time control system.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_228/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning attorney fees in liquidation
Summary of the Facts
An attorney (A.________) was mandated by the bankruptcy estate in the liquidation of C.________ SA. During the procedure regarding fees, a dispute arose between a creditor of the estate, B.________ AG, and the liquidation office. The subject was the amount of attorney fees of A.________ and their alleged unreasonableness. The lower instance ordered A.________ to reimburse an amount of CHF 950.01 and to conduct a mediation procedure regarding his fee notes.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_363/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning rent arrears
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and B.________ were ordered to vacate a rented property after they failed to pay rent arrears despite reminders and termination threats. The lower instances confirmed the validity of the termination pursuant to Art. 257d CO. Humanitarian reasons were not considered in the proceedings but could possibly be asserted at the enforcement stage.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.