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 you with detailed summaries including 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 tailored individually to your areas of law.
7B_411/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning criminal investigation for defamation
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a criminal complaint on 9 September 2024 against journalist B.________ for defamation (Art. 173 Swiss Criminal Code) in connection with a report about a restaurant. The public prosecutor’s office of the canton of Solothurn decided on 7 January 2025 not to initiate proceedings. The appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Solothurn Cantonal Court on 5 May 2025.
Summary of the Considerations
- E.1.1: The Federal Supreme Court examines jurisdiction and admissibility ex officio. This is a final decision of the last cantonal instance in a criminal matter. The appeal was filed in due time. - E.1.3.1: The standing of the private plaintiff requires a legally protected interest in the annulment or amendment of the contested decision. This necessitates the presentation of concrete civil claims, e.g. for compensation or damages (Art. 81 para. 1 lit. b no. 5 BGG). The requirements for justification are strict. - E.1.3.2: A.________ did not sufficiently demonstrate that the prerequisites for civil claims such as compensation for personality rights violations or damages are met. The alleged severity of the personality violation and the claimed damage were not substantiated legally. Moreover, it remains unclear whether A.________ himself is entitled to claim. - E.1.3.3: The appeal does not meet the requirements for justification. A.________ is not entitled to appeal on the merits due to lack of standing. - E.2.1–E.2.2: Although A.________ could allege formal violations of his party rights (“Star practice”), he essentially pursues a substantive review of the decision with his asserted complaints. Such complaints are inadmissible within the framework of the “Star practice.”
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal was not admitted, and A.________ must bear the court costs without being awarded party compensation.
5A_763/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning stay of enforcement in a child custody matter
Summary of the Facts
The unmarried parents A.________ (mother) and B.________ (father) are involved in an ongoing conflict over the care and upbringing of their common child C.________. The District Court of Dielsdorf had previously ordered precautionary measures, according to which alternating custody with civil residence of the child with the father was to apply. The mother applied to the Zurich Cantonal Court for a stay of enforcement of these measures, which was rejected.
Summary of the Considerations
The appeal concerns an interlocutory decision on the stay of enforcement of precautionary measures. The appeal is admissible if a disadvantage that is not easily reparable is demonstrated. The other requirements (Art. 72 ff. BGG) are met. Only violations of constitutional rights can be asserted (Art. 98 BGG). The facts presented by the appellant, insofar as they deviate from the lower instances, and the subsequently submitted evidence remain disregarded. The appellant complained that the lower instance denied her the right to reply to statements of the opposing parties. The Federal Supreme Court found that in interlocutory decisions concerning suspensive effect, there is generally no absolute right to reply. Moreover, no new decisive fact was presented. The lower instance evaluated expert reports indicating that the child’s welfare could be impaired by maternal care. It favored the introduction of alternating custody with a change of residence to the father. The appellant could not prove any decisive factual or legal errors. According to Art. 315 para. 4 lit. b CPC, enforcement of precautionary measures can be stayed if a disadvantage that is not easily reparable threatens. The child’s welfare is decisive. Based on the expert reports and the upcoming school enrollment, the Federal Supreme Court rejected the stay of enforcement. The application for legal aid was rejected because the appeal was hopeless from the outset.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal is dismissed, the application for precautionary measures is recorded as moot, and court costs are imposed on the appellant.
1C_582/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning subsequent building permit for a fence
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and B.________ erected approximately 40 meters of Engadin-style fence on their parcel in Zuoz without a permit and subsequently applied for the corresponding building permit. The municipality of Zuoz refused the subsequent permit. The Administrative Court of the canton of Graubünden overturned this decision and instructed the municipality to examine the existence of an exceptional circumstance according to the neighborhood plan regulations. The municipality again refused the permit in a more recent decision. The Cantonal Court dismissed the appeal of A.________ and B.________ against the renewed decision of the municipality. The appellants then filed an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the Considerations
- E.1: The Federal Supreme Court examines its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the appeal ex officio. The requirements according to Art. 93 BGG for independent contestability of interlocutory decisions are not met.
- E.1.2: The decision of the lower instance constitutes an interlocutory decision, since the restoration of the lawful state has not yet been decided.
- E.1.3: The appeal does not cause an irreparable disadvantage (Art. 93 para. 1 lit. a BGG). Nor are the requirements of Art. 93 para. 1 lit. b BGG met, as no significant savings of time or costs would be achieved.
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court did not admit the appeal and imposed court costs on the appellants.
7B_1333/2024: Non-admission of the appeal concerning forgery of documents and share register
Summary of the Facts
In summer 2022, A.________ SA and B.________ SA signed a contract for the purchase of 50% of the shares of a subsidiary for CHF 50,000. Later, the contract was declared invalid by B.________ SA due to defects of intent, which A.________ SA disputed. In 2024, A.________ SA filed a criminal complaint for document forgery against board member D.________, alleging that the share register had been falsified to remove A.________ SA as shareholder.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_376/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning stay of deportation
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________, who was convicted in Switzerland to several custodial and monetary sentences, was sentenced on 28 September 2017 to 20 months’ imprisonment combined with a five-year deportation order. After his release, the cantonal migration office requested the execution of the deportation. The appellant applied to stay the deportation, citing changed family circumstances, particularly close contact with his three children.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_745/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning claim for insolvency compensation
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, a former employee of the insolvent B.________ GmbH, claimed insolvency compensation for outstanding wage claims for November and December 2022. Since he took no further necessary procedural steps between the threat of bankruptcy and the opening of bankruptcy, the unemployment insurance fund of the canton of Zurich and the lower court denied his claim citing grossly negligent breach of the duty to mitigate damages.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_133/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning application for unsealing in criminal procedural law
Summary of the Facts
The Zurich Office of the Attorney General filed an application for unsealing after securing items such as computers, files, and mobile phones in the context of a fraud criminal proceeding against A.________ and two co-defendants, which were protected by sealing against further searches. The coercive measures court of the District Court of Dietikon did not admit the unsealing application because it was submitted by email without electronic signature. The Federal Supreme Court dealt with the question of formal requirements for an unsealing application in the appeal.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_710/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning building permit for a mobile communications facility
Summary of the Facts
A mobile communications facility on a property located in an agricultural zone and a landscape protection area in the municipality of Thal is to be rebuilt and expanded. The appellants requested the annulment of the building permit, arguing in particular that landscape protection was violated and that an alternative site assessment was insufficient. The lower courts rejected the objections and approved the construction project.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_380/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning subsequent building permit for a dog enclosure
Summary of the Facts
The owner of a property located outside the building zone in the municipality of Surpierre applied for a subsequent building permit for a dog enclosure consisting of a roof, six dog houses, and a new fence. The cantonal building authority refused the permit on the grounds that the construction project does not comply with the requirements of the Spatial Planning Act (Art. 24c para. 4 LAT) nor the requirements for a lawful exceptional permit. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Administrative Court of the canton of Fribourg and dismissed the appeal of the owner.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2E_5/2024: Non-admission of the appeal concerning damages due to takeover of Credit Suisse by UBS
Summary of the Facts
The plaintiff, a shareholder of Credit Suisse (CS), claimed damages from the Swiss Confederation amounting to CHF 140,783.30. He alleged that the takeover of CS by UBS enabled by the Federal Council’s emergency measures of 16 and 19 March 2023 had caused a massive devaluation of his CS shares. The plaintiff particularly alleged a violation of the property guarantee and other principles of the Federal Constitution as well as the prohibition of arbitrariness.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_318/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning wage garnishment and subsistence minimum
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was subject to three debt enforcement proceedings regarding various claims by C.________ SA and the State of Geneva. The debt enforcement office ordered a wage garnishment of CHF 3,300 after A.________ failed to comply with requests to cooperate. She complained, among other things, that the maintenance costs for her adult daughter were not taken into account in calculating her enforcement law subsistence minimum. The appeals against the wage garnishment and the garnishment protocol were dismissed by the lower court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_1304/2024: Upholding of the appeal concerning conviction under Art. 93 para. 2 SVG
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was finally convicted by the Police Court of the canton of Geneva by judgment of 16 August 2023 for violation of Art. 93 para. 2 lit. a SVG and fined CHF 200. His legal remedy against this judgment was dismissed by the Criminal Appeal Chamber on 28 February 2024. The conviction was based on a defective left dipped headlight on his vehicle discovered during a police control. A.________ argued that he had not noticed the defect as it only occurred during driving.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_862/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning legal aid in divorce proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed an application for legal aid in divorce proceedings at the District Court of Frauenfeld, which was initially rejected. After submitting a reconsideration request, the district court granted legal aid from the cut-off date of 30 June 2025. The appellant requested retroactive legal aid from 19 March 2024 before the Thurgau Cantonal Court. The cantonal court dismissed his appeal. A.________ then filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_418/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning postponement of the hearing
Summary of the Facts
The appellant challenged a decision of the Court of Appeal of the canton of Basel-Stadt, which dismissed his request for postponement of the hearing and recorded the appeal proceedings as closed following withdrawal of the appeal.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_614/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning legal aid in bankruptcy proceedings
Summary of the Facts
A.________ declared insolvency at the District Court of Zofingen and simultaneously applied for legal aid. The district court rejected this application. A.________ appealed to the Aargau Cantonal Court, which dismissed the appeal. The application for legal aid for this appeal procedure was also rejected, and costs were imposed on the appellant. A.________ then filed a civil law appeal (possibly a subsidiary constitutional complaint) with the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_802/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning return of a child to Germany
Summary of the Facts
The parents of the child C.________, born in 2022, who are separated and not married, dispute the return of the child to Germany. The District Court D.________ (DE) granted the father custody and other care rights in November 2025, after which the father brought the child to Switzerland. The mother requested the return of the child to Germany, which the Thurgau Cantonal Court rejected. The mother filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, together with an application for legal aid.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_547/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning recognition and declaration of enforceability of an Italian payment order
Summary of the Facts
The judgment concerns the question of recognition and declaration of enforceability (exequatur) of an Italian payment order in Switzerland. The payment order was served on A.________ as the owner of a sole proprietorship, with notification made to his then partner. The lower courts confirmed recognition of the payment order based on the Lugano Convention (CLug). A.________ argued that service was not properly effected and that this violated his defense rights.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_165/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning the formal validity of an unsealing application
Summary of the Facts
The Zurich Office of the Attorney General seized various electronic devices on 30 July 2025 in the context of criminal proceedings against A.________ for fraud offenses, which A.________ had sealed. On 4 August 2025, the Office applied to the coercive measures court of the District Court of Dietikon for unsealing, submitting the application by email without electronic signature. The coercive measures court did not admit the application for lack of formal validity by order of 8 January 2026. The Office appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_110/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning request for recusal in a neighbor law matter
Summary of the Facts
The appellants, consisting of five persons, filed a recusal request against the single judge managing the proceedings in a neighbor law dispute before the Werdenberg-Sarganserland District Court. The request was based on alleged procedural errors and a criminal complaint filed against the judge. The District Court and the St. Gallen Cantonal Court dismissed the recusal request.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_322/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning withdrawal of the right to personal contact between father and child
Summary of the Facts
A.________ and B.________, unmarried parents of the child C.________ born in 2017, separated shortly after his birth. Since 2018, only supervised visits between father and son were allowed, which were eventually interrupted; the last visit took place in February 2022. The Child and Adult Protection Authority of Basel-Stadt (KESB) revoked the father’s contact rights, withdrew his parental custody, and dismissed his request for an expert assessment of the parents. The Appellate Court of Basel-Stadt essentially confirmed the first-instance decisions but ordered the continuation of the guardianship with a modified mandate.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.