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 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 individually tailored to your legal areas.
1C_19/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning the construction of a new mobile communications facility
Summary of the facts
Swisscom (Switzerland) AG submitted a building application for a mobile communications facility in the industrial zone Aa in Wängi, Thurgau. The construction project was approved by the competent municipality and the cantonal authorities, despite an objection by a resident (A.________), who referred to ideal and subjective impairments as well as possible negative environmental impacts. After the cantonal final rejection of his appeal, A.________ brought the case to the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the considerations
The respondent was involved in the proceedings of the lower courts. The appellant is basically entitled to appeal. The appeal is admissible, as there are no exclusion grounds under the Federal Supreme Court Act (BGG). The Federal Supreme Court examines only sufficiently substantiated complaints. The duties to complain and to provide reasons were explicitly emphasized. According to Art. 22 para. 2 lit. a RPG, the mobile communications facility complies with zoning regulations. Moreover, it suffices that mobile communications facilities in building zones do not impair ISOS-protected buildings; proof of necessity or a balancing of interests including alternative sites is not required. The objections concerning allegedly insufficient investigations of reflection effects and the interaction of non-ionizing radiation were dismissed. A measurement after commissioning of the facility is sufficient. The appellant's subjective electromagnetic sensitivity does not justify emission restrictions beyond the limits set in the NISV. The visibility of the planned mobile communications facility does not impair the local heritage protection area. The lower court rightly relied on the results of the on-site inspection. All complaints of the appellant were ultimately assessed as unfounded or insufficiently substantiated.
Summary of the dispositive
The appellant resident's complaint was dismissed, court costs were imposed on him, and no party compensation was awarded.
4D_117/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning legal opening
Summary of the facts
The appellant challenged a decision issued in the legal opening procedure by the District Court of Toggenburg, which granted definitive legal opening for CHF 4,675.-- plus interest in favor of the respondent. The Cantonal Court of St. Gallen dismissed the appellant's appeal against this decision. The appellant then lodged an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court and applied for legal aid.
Summary of the considerations
The Federal Supreme Court found that the appellant's appeal was obviously insufficiently reasoned. In particular, there was a lack of a detailed and clear complaint of a violation of fundamental rights as required by Art. 106 para. 2 BGG. For this reason, the Federal Supreme Court did not enter into the appeal in the simplified procedure under Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b BGG. The appellant's request for legal aid was rejected as the appeal appeared hopeless from the outset (Art. 64 para. 1 BGG).
Summary of the dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court did not admit the appeal, rejected the request for legal aid, and imposed the court costs on the appellant. No party compensation was awarded.
5A_792/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning seizure within the framework of multiple debt enforcement proceedings
Summary of the facts
The Federal Supreme Court had to decide on an appeal concerning a seizure within the framework of multiple debt enforcement proceedings against A.________. The Bellinzona Debt Enforcement Office had partially seized the debtor's income. The appeal was directed against prior decisions of the debt enforcement office and the supervisory authority of the canton.
Summary of the considerations
- E.1: The Bellinzona Debt Enforcement Office rejected the appellant's request to postpone a seizure date. Instead, part of the appellant's income was seized.
- E.2: The lower instance, the supervisory authority of the canton of Ticino, dismissed the appeal because no special conditions within the meaning of Art. 56 et seq. SchKG were present and it is not the authorities' task to clarify the existence of claims in the debt enforcement procedure.
- E.3: The Federal Supreme Court examined the appeal and found that it did not meet the requirements for reasoning pursuant to Art. 42 para. 2 and Art. 106 para. 2 BGG. The appellant was unable to demonstrate how the lower court had violated his rights.
- E.4: The appellant's complaints regarding the activities of his former lawyer were assessed as outside the subject matter of the dispute.
Summary of the dispositive
The appeal was declared inadmissible and the court costs were imposed on the appellant.
7B_770/2026: Upholding the appeal concerning the order to lift seals
Summary of the facts
A.________ has been involved since April 13, 2026, in criminal proceedings for rape (Art. 190 para. 1 SCC). During the proceedings, his mobile phone and laptop were seized and sealed. The Tribunal des mesures de contrainte (TMC) of the Tribunal régional des Montagnes et du Val-de-Ruz ordered on May 28, 2026, the lifting of the seal concerning certain data. A.________ lodged an appeal and requested the annulment of this order as well as the initiation of a judicial separation procedure before a possible handover of the data to the prosecution authorities.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
4A_47/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning termination of a lease agreement
Summary of the facts
The dispute concerns the termination of a lease agreement between the Fondazione A.________ and the property owner B.________. The lease agreement, which began on April 1, 2007, initially had a term of ten years and was extended by five years each time in the absence of termination. During the term of the contract, negotiations took place regarding a possible shortening of the lease period. There was disagreement in particular about the modalities and financial consequences of an early termination. Later, the tenant claimed that the contract ended on March 31, 2022, while the landlord assumed a term until March 31, 2027.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
4A_241/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning a lease agreement
Summary of the facts
The appellants A.________ and B.________ filed an appeal against a judgment of the Chambre des baux et loyers of the Cour de justice of the Canton of Geneva dated March 20, 2026, concerning a lease agreement. However, the appeal was declared inadmissible because the required advance payment of costs (Art. 62 LTF) was not made within the set deadlines.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
2C_301/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning residence permit and expulsion
Summary of the facts
The appellant, a Spanish national, received a UE/EFTA residence permit without employment on January 16, 2023, valid until April 28, 2028. The Cantonal Population Service of the Canton of Vaud revoked this permit on March 21, 2025, and ordered her expulsion from Switzerland. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Vaud dismissed the appeal against this decision on April 20, 2026. The appellant then lodged an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
2C_400/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning residence status and family reunification
Summary of the facts
A.A.________ (born 1989), his wife B.A.________ (born 1992) and their common son C.A.________ (born 2013), Kosovar nationals, applied for regularization of their residence status in Switzerland as well as family reunification. A.A.________ had been in Switzerland since 2013 and had been convicted several times in the past (including for illegal residence, unauthorized employment, and forgery of documents). The competent Office for Population and Migration of the Canton of Geneva rejected their applications and ordered expulsion. The appeals filed with the Tribunal administratif of the Canton of Geneva and the Cour de justice were unsuccessful.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
1C_505/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning the qualification of on-call duty as working time
Summary of the facts
The respondent, B.________, was employed as a certified paramedic HF at the Stiftung A.________. In connection with on-call duties performed over several years, she requested payment of CHF 81,993.70 for on-call hours not compensated as working time, primarily regarding their qualification as standby duty. The Higher Court of the Canton of Graubünden upheld her claim. Stiftung A.________ appealed the judgment to the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
6B_415/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning intentional endangerment of life and procedural costs
Summary of the facts
The appellant A.________ had already been convicted in several lower court decisions of intentional endangerment of life, attempted coercion, and other offenses. The Federal Supreme Court reviewed some of the charges again based on an earlier remand decision (judgment of June 10, 2025). A key point of dispute was the assessment of the intentional use of a weapon which endangered B.B.________ and C.B.________. The appellant also challenged the procedural rules imposed, the sentencing, the allocation of procedural costs, and the dismissal of some of his legal motions.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
5A_1111/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning invalidation of a settlement in inheritance division proceedings
Summary of the facts
In 2021, the testator D.A.________ passed away. She left two children, A.A.________ and C.A.________, as well as various assets. By her last will, the testator assigned C.A.________ the compulsory portion and left further shares to her son A.A.________ as well as a legacy to his life partner. The estate led to disputes, prompting C.A.________ to file inheritance division, reduction, and information claims. During an instruction hearing, the parties concluded a settlement whose content was later disputed by A.A.________ and his life partner. They requested the district court to declare it invalid, which was treated as a revision request and rejected. The Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich also dismissed the appeal against this decision, insofar as it was admitted.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
4D_135/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning definitive legal opening
Summary of the facts
The appellant A.________ turned to the Federal Supreme Court after the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich did not admit his appeal against a legal opening decision of the District Court of Hinwil. The central problem of the submitted appeal brief was the absence of a handwritten signature.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
8C_261/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning disability pension
Summary of the facts
The appellant A.________, born in 1976, applied to the IV office of the Canton of Aargau in 2009 and 2021 for renewed review of benefit payments. It granted her a limited full disability pension for the period from November 1, 2023, to September 30, 2024, but denied further pension entitlement. The appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Insurance Court of the Canton of Aargau. A.________ lodged an appeal against this judgment with the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
1C_93/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning authorization to prosecute
Summary of the facts
The appellants, spouses A.A.________ and B.A.________, filed a complaint against C.________ (municipal president) and D.________ (school board president) for abuse of office, breach of official duty, and forgery of documents or abuse of office and violation of data protection. The complaint concerned the onward charging of pension and ancillary costs for an external placement by the municipality of Diepoldsau. The St. Gallen Cantonal Indictment Chamber refused authorization to prosecute the respondents, whereupon the appellants brought the matter to the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
6B_325/2024: Federal Supreme Court judgment in criminal proceedings 6B_325/2024
Summary of the facts
A.________ was sentenced by the I. Criminal Chamber of the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich on December 12, 2023, to a prison term of 50 months, among other things for serious bodily injury and multiple sexual acts with children. A.________’s appeal against this judgment led to a suspension of the proceedings, as he had previously filed a request for revision. On June 16, 2026, the Higher Court granted the revision request, partially overturned the judgment of December 12, 2023, and remanded the case for new proceedings.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
8C_534/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning disability pension
Summary of the facts
The appellant A.________, born in 1967, registered with the IV office of the Canton of Bern in May 2021 due to knee complaints. After a work accident in September 2020 and knee surgery, she was also medically examined for back problems. The IV office Bern granted a limited full disability pension from November 2021 to May 2023, but refused a further pension entitlement by decision of August 9, 2024. The appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern in July 2025.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
7B_1027/2026: Federal Supreme Court judgment on detention order due to risk factors
Summary of the facts
In criminal proceedings against A.________, who was charged with various offenses including bodily injury, threats, sexual acts with children, and rape, he was taken into pre-trial detention on March 25, 2024, by the Tribunal des mesures de contrainte of the Canton of Vaud. A psychiatric expert opinion dated November 8, 2024, found a high risk of relapse, particularly in relationships. The detention was extended until January 24, 2025, after which A.________ was released under various conditions, including electronic ankle monitoring and contact ban with the victims. On December 16, 2025, he was sentenced by the Tribunal criminel to seven years in prison, and the conditions of his release, intended to guarantee public safety, were maintained. Over time, there were several serious allegations against A.________, including sexual abuse and psychological and physical violence against various women. After further breaches of the conditions, the public prosecutor requested his re-incarceration on July 22, 2026, which was confirmed on August 5, 2026, by the president of the Criminal Court of Vaud.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
5F_33/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning revision and correction of the judgment
Summary of the facts
A.________, the original appellant, initially requested measures before the first instance court of the Canton of Geneva, which were denied. All further instances, including the Federal Supreme Court, rejected the applicant’s appeals against these decisions. With the present proceedings, A.________ sought revision of the Federal Supreme Court judgment, an interpretation, and a possible correction thereof and filed numerous ancillary motions.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
4A_292/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning international sports sanctions
Summary of the facts
The judgment relates to an international arbitration proceeding in the field of sports. A professional cyclist was suspended for four years by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) for doping, his competition results were disqualified, and he was fined EUR 1,050,000. The lower courts, including the Tribunal Arbitral du Sport (TAS), confirmed the sanctions. The cyclist applied to the Federal Supreme Court for their annulment, arguing among other things that evidence was unlawfully obtained and that the penalties were disproportionate.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
4D_131/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning definitive legal opening
Summary of the facts
The appellant lodged an appeal against the decision of the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich, which itself did not admit the appeal against a legal opening decision of the single judge at the District Court of Hinwil. The appeal brief filed with the Federal Supreme Court was signed with a scanned signature, which does not suffice under the Federal Supreme Court Act (Art. 42 para. 1 BGG).
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
4D_90/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning advance payment of costs
Summary of the facts
The appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against the judgment of the Higher Court of the Canton of Solothurn (Civil Chamber) dated April 9, 2026. The Federal Supreme Court requested the appellant to pay an advance payment of costs of CHF 800 by July 6, 2026. A grace period according to Art. 62 para. 3 BGG until August 3, 2026, was also set. The appellant did not comply with this request, and therefore the appeal was not admitted.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
7B_774/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning attempted intentional homicide, threats, violation of the Weapons Act, and embezzlement
Summary of the facts
The Federal Supreme Court examined two appeals in criminal proceedings involving several offenses, including attempted intentional homicide, threats, violation of the Weapons Act, and embezzlement. A.________ was acquitted at a lower instance of attempted homicide and violation of the Weapons Act but was convicted of threats and embezzlement. B.B.________ was found guilty of attempted intentional homicide, threats, violation of the Weapons Act, and embezzlement and was sentenced, among other things, to eight years imprisonment and expelled from the country for ten years. These convictions were upheld after thorough review by the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
7B_35/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning termination of criminal proceedings
Summary of the facts
A.A.________ filed a criminal complaint against B.________ in September 2022 for several offenses, including attempted coercion and threats related to an incident on August 19, 2022, false testimony, misleading statements, and defamation. The Zurich-Sihl public prosecutor discontinued the proceedings by order dated September 25, 2024. A.A.________ appealed to the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich, which dismissed the appeal on November 18, 2025. A.A.________ challenged this decision before the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
4A_144/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning shareholders’ inspection rights
Summary of the facts
A minority shareholder (A.________) of the Zug-based B.________ AG requested inspection of the share register as well as the annual financial statements and minutes of the general meetings of the past five years. After the respondent (B.________ AG) did not respond to the inspection request, the shareholder sought a court order for inspection. The Cantonal and Higher Court of Zug dismissed the claims. The shareholder appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
7B_89/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning denial and delay of justice
Summary of the facts
The appellants A.________ and B.________ applied to the District Court of Lenzburg for consolidation of several criminal proceedings. The District Court forwarded the request to the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau. The head of the 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Higher Court dismissed the request because the relevant proceedings were no longer pending at the Higher Court. The appellants appealed these orders to the Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Higher Court, which did not admit the appeals. The appellants then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
8C_275/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning order of an expert opinion in disability insurance proceedings
Summary of the facts
The IV office of the Canton of Zurich wanted to order a second psychiatric-neuropsychological expert opinion in the context of a disability procedure because the first expert opinion was considered unusable. The insured requested that this order be issued in the form of an enforceable decision to be able to challenge it, which the IV office refused. The Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich instructed the IV office to issue an interim decision on the expert opinion order.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
4D_120/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning definitive legal opening
Summary of the facts
The Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich granted the Canton of Zurich definitive legal opening against the appellant for CHF 1,100.– in a legal opening procedure. The appellant then submitted a petition to the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
1C_420/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning driver's license revocation
Summary of the facts
The Federal Supreme Court examines the appeal of A.________ against a decision of the III. Administrative Court Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Fribourg. The cantonal court had declared A.________’s appeal against the definitive revocation of his driver's license by the OCN (Office de la circulation et de la navigation de l'État de Fribourg) as late and therefore inadmissible. The dispute was whether A.________ could rely on the principle of legitimate expectation despite incorrect official information about the appeal deadline.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
4A_386/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning legal opening decision
Summary of the facts
The appellant challenged a legal opening decision of the single judge of the District Court of Pfäffikon, which was confirmed by the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich. He appealed the Higher Court's judgment to the Federal Supreme Court. A request for suspensive effect was previously rejected; no submissions were obtained.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
6B_543/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning alternative charges and discontinuation of proceedings
Summary of the facts
The public prosecutor brought charges against A.________ and B.________ based on different and mutually exclusive factual accounts of the same incident. In a first procedure, the District Court of Meilen acquitted B.________, and the Higher Court of Zurich discontinued both proceedings at second instance. A.________ filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court and demanded the conviction of B.________ as well as compensation.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
1C_354/2024: Non-admission of the appeal concerning regulations on automated vehicle search and the use of body cameras
Summary of the facts
On November 28, 2023, the Grand Council of the Canton of Bern decided on a partial revision of the Police Act (PolG/BE). The amendments included the introduction of regulations on automated vehicle search (AF) (Art. 109 et seq. PolG/BE) and on the use of body cameras (Art. 122a PolG/BE). Various political parties, associations, and a private individual filed public law appeals against these provisions, requesting their annulment.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
1C_754/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning water protection zone designation
Summary of the facts
The appellants A.A.________ and B.A.________, owners of two properties in Münsterlingen (Lake Constance shore), oppose the designation of the water protection zone by the municipality of Münsterlingen, which provides for a width of 15 meters in the area of their properties. After objections and appeals before cantonal instances, all of which were rejected, they appealed to the Federal Supreme Court. They particularly complained about infringements of the property guarantee (Art. 26 BV) and challenged the proportionality as well as the legal basis of the disputed water protection zone designation.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
7B_37/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning non-initiation of criminal proceedings for fraud and extortion
Summary of the facts
The appellant A.________ filed a criminal complaint against B.________ for fraud, as he allegedly induced him to sign a document ("Out-of-court inheritance division") through deception, which allegedly enabled an unjustified claim. He also accused B.________ of having pressured him to sign, which he considered extortion. The Zurich-Sihl public prosecutor ordered not to initiate proceedings due to lack of criminal grounds. The Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed the appeal against this order.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
4D_115/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning removal of the objection to a payment order
Summary of the facts
The appellant A.________ requested the removal of the objection of B.________ to a payment order concerning CHF 23,466.–. The first-instance court, the deputy single judge of the Mendrisio-Nord jurisdiction, dismissed A.________’s request on May 4, 2026. The III Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Ticino declared the appeal filed by A.________ inadmissible on June 2, 2026, due to insufficient engagement with the lower court’s considerations. A.________ then lodged an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court on June 30, 2026.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.