Latest Judgments of the Federal Supreme Court
Here you will find the most recent judgments of the Federal Supreme Court (FSCHR) 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 fields.
4A_318/2026: Non-admission of the appeal regarding contestation of termination and extension of a tenancy
Summary of the facts
The appellants rented a 5.5-room apartment which, due to a change of ownership, passed to the respondents. After the respondents terminated the lease for personal use, the appellants requested the annulment of the termination or an extension of the tenancy. The lower courts declared the termination valid and granted only a limited extension.
Summary of the considerations
- R. 1: The Federal Supreme Court examines the admissibility of the appeal and notes that it was filed formally and timely but is unfounded insofar as it introduces inadmissible new facts. - R. 2: The termination for personal use was reviewed regarding the intention to move in and was declared lawful. The appellants’ claims that the termination was abusive were not given predominant evidentiary weight. - R. 3: The lower court correctly limited the extension, as no sufficient reasons for a longer extension were presented and the appellants made hardly any serious efforts to find alternative accommodation. - R. 4: The request by the appellants to set a move-out deadline is not admitted as it was not the subject matter of the contested decision. - R. 5: The lower court lawfully fixed the party compensation for the respondents at the upper limit of the cantonal fee scale.
Summary of the dispositive
The appeal was dismissed and court costs of CHF 3,500 were imposed on the appellants. No party compensation was awarded.
4A_115/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning preliminary measures at an extraordinary general meeting
Summary of the facts
The two appellants, A.________ LP and B.________ GmbH, applied to the Commercial Court of the Canton of St. Gallen for the ordering of preliminary measures regarding an extraordinary general meeting of the respondent, C.________ AG. The matter concerned the introduction of new share categories (A0 and B preferred shares) and capital increases. The Commercial Court of St. Gallen did not admit the application of appellant 1 (A.________ LP), dismissed the application of appellant 2 (B.________ GmbH) insofar as it was not moot, and lifted a previously ordered commercial register block.
Summary of the considerations
The Federal Supreme Court found that the contested decision is an interlocutory decision as the preliminary measures are issued in view of the main proceedings. The appellants credibly demonstrated an irreparable disadvantage, which warranted examining the admissibility of the appeal. It was examined whether alleged violations of constitutional rights were raised, taking into account the limited review under Art. 98 BGG. Requests for correction or supplementation of the facts were rejected. The lower court set short deadlines justified in an urgent measures procedure. There was no violation of the right to be heard or equality of arms. The Commercial Court’s non-admission of appellant 1’s application was confirmed; appellant 1 did not act through the mandatory general partner according to Guernsey law, a legal assessment upheld by the lower court. The lower court rejected the alleged nullity or contestability of the general meeting resolutions related to convening defects; this assessment withstood the Federal Supreme Court’s limited review. The lower court correctly concluded that no qualified majority quorums were violated in the second capital increase, as no offsetting liberations were provided. The principle of cautious exercise of rights was not breached. The lower court followed the reasoning that no credible evidence was provided for the allegedly too high issue price of the new shares. The appellants also lost regarding the alleged violation of the principle of equal treatment.
Summary of the dispositive
The appeal was dismissed and court costs as well as party compensation were imposed on the appellants.
6B_782/2025: Non-admission of the appeal regarding expulsion of an Italian national
Summary of the facts
A. (appellant), an Italian national, was convicted by the Regional Court of Plessur for crimes and offenses against the Narcotics Act (Art. 19 para. 1 lit. c and d as well as Art. 19 para. 2 lit. a BetmG), money laundering (Art. 305bis no. 1 Swiss Criminal Code), minor theft (Art. 139 no. 1 SCC in conjunction with Art. 172ter para. 1 SCC), and obstruction of official acts (Art. 286 para. 1 SCC) to a suspended prison sentence of 20 months and a fine. No expulsion was ordered. After appeal by the prosecution, the Higher Court of the Canton of Grisons imposed a prison sentence of 26 months (6 months unconditional) and ordered a five-year expulsion. The appellant appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, particularly against the expulsion.
Summary of the considerations
Expulsion is generally mandatory for convictions of qualified offenses against the Narcotics Act (BetmG). An exception is possible only under strict conditions according to the hardship clause (Art. 66a para. 2 SCC): a severe personal hardship must exist. The private interests of the foreigner must outweigh the public interests in expulsion. The lower court thoroughly examined the appellant’s personal circumstances (long-term residence in Switzerland, social integration, support of mother) and affirmed a hardship case. In balancing interests, the lower court found that public interests in expulsion prevail, as the appellant’s actions pose a danger to public safety. The appellant was unemployed and had connections to the drug scene. Despite hardship, the lower court saw no sufficient reasons for the appellant to remain in Switzerland. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the lower court’s assessment: the criteria for balancing interests were correctly applied. The five-year expulsion corresponds to the statutory minimum and is not objectionable. The appellant’s submissions (no prior convictions, social bonds, mother’s support) were already considered by the lower court. The appellant’s request for free legal aid is rejected due to the appeal’s lack of prospects. Court costs are imposed on the appellant (reduced costs due to financial situation).
Summary of the dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, rejected the request for free legal aid, and imposed court costs on the appellant.
8C_441/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning claim for damages
Summary of the facts
The appellant A.________ lodged an appeal against a decision of the Caisse cantonale genevoise de chômage, which rejected his claim for damages pursuant to Art. 78 LPGA. The lower court, the Chambre des assurances sociales of the Cour de justice of the Canton of Geneva, dismissed the appeal.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
7B_974/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning non-admission order of the public prosecutor's office
Summary of the facts
A.________ filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against a decision of the single judge of the criminal chamber of the cantonal court of Valais dated June 25, 2026. This judge had dismissed A.________’s appeal against a non-admission order of the public prosecutor of Valais insofar as he admitted it. The appellant raised, in particular, accusations against a judge of the Monthey district.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
4A_101/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning preliminary measures and commercial register entries
Summary of the facts
The proceedings concerned a dispute between A.________ AG on the one hand and the minority shareholders B.________ LP (registered in Guernsey) and C.________ GmbH (Germany) on the other. Both minority shareholders submitted applications to the Commercial Court of the Canton of St. Gallen relating to the holding of an extraordinary general meeting of A.________ AG and the planned capital increases based on this meeting. Among others, an injunction against the general meeting or a commercial register block for the planned entries was requested. The Commercial Court essentially rejected the application. Two appeals were filed against this decision (cases 4A_101/2026 and 4A_115/2026).
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
4D_125/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning order for legal enforcement
Summary of the facts
In the present case, A.________ AG (appellant) applied to the President of the Civil Court of the Broye District within the framework of a debt collection procedure against B.________ Sàrl (respondent) for legal enforcement of an amount of CHF 3,306.70 plus interest. This was dismissed on June 9, 2026. A.________ AG appealed to the II Civil Appeals Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Fribourg, which was dismissed on July 3, 2026.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
7B_952/2024: Non-admission of the appeal concerning criminal complaint for bodily injury and coercion
Summary of the facts
A.________ filed a criminal complaint on November 21, 2022, against her former partner B.________, alleging, among other things, that he had acted violently towards her and had expelled her from their shared residence. B.________ denied the allegations and filed a criminal complaint against A.________ in turn. The Geneva public prosecutor’s office did not admit A.________’s complaint on October 24, 2023. The criminal chamber of the Geneva Cantonal Court confirmed this decision by judgment of July 4, 2024.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
6B_358/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning expulsion and criminal responsibility
Summary of the facts
The Court of Appeal Basel-Stadt convicted A.________ of rape, multiple sexual coercions, and other offenses. It imposed a prison sentence of 3 years and 6 months, ordered a 7-year expulsion, and mandated inpatient addiction treatment. A.________ filed various motions, including to lift the expulsion and to exclude certain evidence due to violation of the right to participate.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
5A_210/2026: Non-admission of the appeal regarding seizure of a claim
Summary of the facts
In the context of a debt collection against A.________ SA, a claim against C.________ SA arising from a loan agreement dated October 31, 2023, was seized. This claim was recorded with a nominal value of CHF 10,367,352 in a seizure protocol dated May 24, 2024, and estimated at CHF 1,351,000. A sale of this claim was scheduled, whereupon A.________ SA filed an appeal, citing, among other things, an alleged violation of Arts. 116 and 97 SchKG. The lower court dismissed the appeal.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
1C_275/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning landfill material expansion
Summary of the facts
A.________ owns two plots in Mendrisio, on which a landfill operated by B.________ SA is located. The latter applied to the Mendrisio municipal council for an expansion of the permitted landfill materials, which was rejected. The subsequent legal path through the State Council and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Ticino led to dismissal of the appeals as A.________’s standing to appeal was not recognized.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
6B_241/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning sentencing and expulsion in commercial fraud
Summary of the facts
The appellant was convicted by the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau on March 2, 2026, for commercial fraud (Art. 146 para. 2 SCC) to a prison sentence of 2½ years and a five-year expulsion. Questions regarding cost and compensation rules as well as civil law aspects were also addressed. The appellant challenges the sentencing and expulsion before the Federal Supreme Court.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
6F_23/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning a request for revision
Summary of the facts
A.________ was convicted by the Court of Appeal of Basel-Stadt on November 14, 2025, for endangering life, attempted simple bodily harm, and threat. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against this judgment (6B_87/2026) on June 24, 2026. With a request for revision under Art. 121 lit. d BGG, A.________ sought to have the Federal Supreme Court judgment revised insofar as a mistake affected the assessment of the expulsion and related legal consequences.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
6B_963/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning salary adjustment and civil law claims
Summary of the facts
A.________, former managing director of B.________ SA, was partially found guilty by the first-instance court and sentenced to a fine as well as damages and compensation payments. The cantonal appellate court essentially confirmed the judgment but revoked the imposed fine. The focus is on the unauthorized salary adjustment by A.________ and defamatory statements against C.________. With his appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, A.________ sought full acquittal and dismissal of civil claims.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
6B_867/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning fraudulent conduct towards authorities
Summary of the facts
A.A. was convicted by the Geneva Tribunal de police on January 21, 2025, for fraudulent conduct towards authorities (Art. 118 para. 1 AIG) and false statements to commercial register authorities (Art. 153 SCC) and sentenced to a fine of 70 daily rates of CHF 50 each. The appellate court (Chambre pénale d'appel et de révision) reduced the daily rate to CHF 30 on September 18, 2025, and upheld the convictions. The conviction was based on false information regarding her domicile in Switzerland and the registration of a partnership. A.A. filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
7B_896/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning search and seizure order
Summary of the facts
The appellant A.________ filed an appeal against a decision of the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau dealing with a search and seizure order by the Muri-Bremgarten public prosecutor’s office. The lower court rejected the request for the surrender of electronic devices but lifted the formal seizure.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
8C_335/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning premium arrears
Summary of the facts
A.________ AG in liquidation, represented by its attorney, filed an appeal against a decision of the Insurance Court of the Canton of St. Gallen, which confirmed the Suva’s objection decision regarding premium arrears of CHF 130,055.60. During the proceedings, bankruptcy was opened against A.________ AG and the proceedings were discontinued due to lack of assets.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
6F_15/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning a request for revision
Summary of the facts
The petitioner A.________ filed a request for revision against an earlier Federal Supreme Court judgment (6B_180/2026 of May 1, 2026), in which the Federal Supreme Court had not admitted his appeal against the judgment of the Cantonal Court of Lucerne due to insufficient grounds. With the revision request, A.________ sought, among other things, to have judgment 6B_180/2026 revised and to have the Cantonal Court of Lucerne ordered to conduct a procedure-compliant appeal procedure.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
7B_662/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning nullity of a penal order
Summary of the facts
A.________ caused an accident on the A1 motorway on January 30, 2022, under the influence of alcohol and ecstasy with a non-roadworthy vehicle, resulting in injuries to two persons and multiple traffic violations. The injured parties later filed criminal complaints. An initial penal order dated May 10, 2022, did not take these complaints into account and was subsequently replaced by a new order by the Vaud public prosecutor’s office, against which A.________ invoked the ne bis in idem principle.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
7B_941/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning unsealing of a mobile phone
Summary of the facts
The Zurich-Limmat public prosecutor’s office seized a mobile phone in the context of a criminal investigation against A.________. A.________ requested its sealing; the prosecutor’s office requested unsealing. The coercive measures court did not admit the unsealing request as it found no valid sealing request and ordered the release of the mobile phone to the prosecutor’s office for search.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
7B_1082/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning criminal allegations against a psychiatrist
Summary of the facts
The appellant A.________ filed a criminal complaint against his former psychiatrist. He accused her of abusing the therapeutic relationship to exploit his trust to have him adopt the child of a relative of the psychiatrist from Congo and financially support that family. The Geneva public prosecutor’s office issued a non-admission decision, which was confirmed by the appeals chamber of the Geneva Cantonal Court. The appellant appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
4D_150/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning inadmissible suspension of enforcement
Summary of the facts
A.________, tenant of a one-room apartment in U.________, was ordered by judgment of the President of the Tribunal des baux vaudois dated May 27, 2026, to vacate the apartment within 30 days after the judgment became final. A.________’s request for suspension of enforcement was declared inadmissible on July 13, 2026, as it was filed prematurely. The civil appeals chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court dismissed A.________’s appeal on July 21, 2026.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
6B_169/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning maintenance obligation
Summary of the facts
The appellant A.________ was found guilty in the lower courts of violating maintenance obligations towards his daughter B.________, having failed to pay court-ordered maintenance from February 2017 to September 2021. Maintenance obligations towards his wife were denied. The sentence is a conditional fine of 15 daily rates of CHF 30 each with a probation period of two years. With his appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, the appellant requested annulment of the decision and remand to the lower court for hearing the private plaintiff and consideration of payments in eight months of 2018.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
7B_1355/2024: Non-admission of the appeal concerning dismissal of criminal proceedings
Summary of the facts
A.________ AG lodged an appeal against the dismissal of criminal proceedings against CEO B.________ by the Schwyz public prosecutor’s office. The CEO allegedly charged A.________ AG unjustly for accounting and salary costs amounting to CHF 600,000.–. The appeal failed before the cantonal court, after which A.________ AG filed a criminal appeal to the Federal Supreme Court.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
6B_445/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning restoration of deadline
Summary of the facts
The appellant A.________ requested the Federal Supreme Court to annul various dispositive numbers of a judgment of the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau dated February 26, 2026, relating to convictions, prison sentence, expulsion, and cost consequences. However, the appeal was filed late on June 25, 2026, after the legal appeal deadline had expired. He requested restoration of the appeal deadline pursuant to Art. 50 BGG, citing fault of his former official defender.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
6B_363/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning attempted money laundering
Summary of the facts
A.________ was accused of transporting a suitcase with about GBP 145,000 in cash from Düsseldorf to Zurich on instruction from B.________ to buy watches there. The cash, heavily contaminated with narcotics and explosives, allegedly originated from drug trafficking. Since the suitcase was seized by the border guard corps at Zurich Airport, the attempt was unsuccessful.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
4A_66/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning attorney liability in divorce proceedings
Summary of the facts
The appellant accused his then attorney (respondent) in the context of divorce proceedings of breaching professional duties of care. This allegedly led to an increase in the matrimonial property equalization payment to the wife. He filed a claim for attorney liability, which was dismissed by both the District Court of Lucerne and on appeal by the Cantonal Court of Lucerne.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
1C_317/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning building permit for new chalet construction
Summary of the facts
A.A.________ and B.A.________ applied for a building permit for the demolition and new construction of a chalet on a tourism zone plot in Val de Bagnes. After project adjustments, the municipality granted the permit despite objections from neighbors. The State Council of Valais dismissed the neighbors’ appeal by qualifying certain areas as secondary usage areas (SUS), thus considering building regulations complied with. The Cantonal Court, however, classified the areas as main usage areas (SUP) and revoked the permit. A.A.________, B.A.________ and the municipality appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.
4A_92/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning a claim for damages
Summary of the facts
A.________ was pursued for a claim for damages of CHF 733,690.52, based on a court decision of the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich. Compensation claims paid by the state to the injured party were asserted by assignment from the injured party to the Canton of Zurich. The District Court of Kulm granted the respondent definitive legal enforcement, which was confirmed by the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau.
The complete summary of the judgment is available on the portal.