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 detailed summaries including facts, considerations, and dispositives. For the other judgments, you will find a summary of the facts. 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 areas of law.
7F_50/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning revision of a criminal proceeding
Summary of the Facts
A.________ requested the revision of judgment 7B_804/2026 of the Federal Supreme Court dated 23 July 2026, by which her appeal in a criminal matter had been declared inadmissible. The underlying case concerned an allegedly inadmissible declaration of discontinuation of a criminal proceeding by the president of the appellate instance in the canton of Ticino.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examines the admissibility of a remedy ex officio and found that its judgments generally become final and binding upon issuance (Art. 61 BGG). A revision is only possible in the cases conclusively provided for in Art. 121 ff. BGG; the grounds for revision must be specifically asserted. The applicant for revision did not cite any legally provided grounds for revision and merely requested a re-examination of the original decision. The submissions were general and insufficiently reasoned regarding the revision. Against this background, the Federal Supreme Court declared the revision request inadmissible due to insufficient reasoning. It decided that no exchange of briefs was necessary (Art. 127 BGG). The revision request was considered nonexistent. Legal aid was denied due to lack of sufficient prospects of success (Art. 64 para. 1 BGG). Court costs were imposed on the losing party (A.________) (Art. 66 para. 1 BGG).
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court declared the revision request inadmissible, rejected the request for legal aid, and imposed court costs of CHF 500 on the losing party.
5A_665/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning summons to a hearing
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, had appealed against the decision of the bankruptcy office of the district of East Vaud canton, which concerned his summons to participate in a hearing. His subsequent request to postpone the hearing was rejected by the competent court, with the excuse of a dentist appointment deemed insufficient. The appeal filed with the Vaud Cantonal Court was also dismissed, notably due to lack of prospects of success. A.________ then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court found that the appeal was moot at the time of its filing, as the hearing had already taken place on 23.06.2026. The Federal Supreme Court also noted that the appellant had not substantively challenged the three independent grounds provided by the lower court, each of which was sufficient to justify dismissal. Due to the lack of a clear presentation of the alleged defects, the appeal was therefore declared inadmissible.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal was declared inadmissible, and costs of CHF 500 were imposed on the appellant.
7B_270/2025: Acceptance of the appeals regarding unsealing of documents and data carriers
Summary of the Facts
The judgment concerns appeals against a decision of the District Court of Zurich, Coercive Measures Court, dated 20 February 2025 related to the unsealing of documents and data carriers seized during a criminal investigation. The investigation concerns possible violations of the UWG and other alleged offenses in the context of the businesses managed by I.________ Funds of the collapsed B.________ group. Various parties, including A.________ AG and C.________, opposed the unsealing.
Summary of the Considerations
1. (E.1) The two proceedings (7B_270/2025 and 7B_271/2025) were joined due to their substantive and procedural connections (Art. 71 BGG in conjunction with Art. 24 BZP).
2. (E.2) Various procedural motions by appellant 1 regarding file inspection became moot, as no corresponding inspection requests had been made.
3. (E.3) The appeals against the decision of 20 February 2025 were deemed admissible, as an irreparable disadvantage was asserted (Art. 93 para. 1 lit. a BGG). It was found that the requirements for a proper unsealing procedure were not fully met.
4. (E.4) Allegations of violation of the right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 BV, Art. 6 no. 1 ECHR) were recognized as justified in several points, as, for example, no sufficient reasoning for the unsealing decision was provided, insufficient file inspection was granted, and essential legal requirements, such as participation in triage, were not observed.
5. (E.5) Due to the formal nature of the right to be heard, the contested decision was annulled. Further complaints did not need to be substantively assessed.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeals were upheld, the original decision annulled, and the matter remanded to the lower court for a new decision. Furthermore, the canton of Zurich was ordered to pay party compensation.
9C_172/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning the tax assessment
Summary of the Facts
The appellants A.A. and B.A. were assessed for the direct federal tax and cantonal taxes for the tax periods 2016 and 2017 both in the canton of Graubünden and in the canton of Ticino. They challenged the rulings of the Ticino tax authority. In parallel, they applied to the Federal Tax Administration (FTA) for determination of the tax domicile. The FTA suspended the corresponding procedure. The Federal Administrative Court lifted the suspension order on the grounds that it was not compatible with Art. 108 DBG.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5F_16/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning revision of a Federal Supreme Court decision
Summary of the Facts
A.A.________ and B.A.________ requested a revision of the Federal Supreme Court decision 5A_310/2026 of 20 April 2026, in which their appeal against a decision of the lower court, confirming the withdrawal of the right to determine the whereabouts of their child and the establishment of a curatorship, was declared inadmissible.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5F_15/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning revision under Art. 121 BGG
Summary of the Facts
A.A. and B.A. applied to the Federal Supreme Court for revision of a decision dated 20 April 2026 (5A_150/2026), which did not consider a complaint regarding a declaration of recusal against the peace judge of the district of Lausanne due to inadmissibility. The revision claim is based on Art. 121 lit. a, c and d BGG and was filed in due time.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
1C_473/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning authorization to open criminal proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed a complaint against unknown persons for fraud, and later against her legal representative, a co-vice president of the KESB, and unknown persons for abuse of office and coercion. After a non-initiation order by the St. Gallen investigation office and the dismissal of her complaint by the public prosecutor's chamber, she appealed to the Federal Supreme Court against the refusal of authorization to open criminal proceedings.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
9C_508/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning determination of tax domicile
Summary of the Facts
A.________ had her main residence in the canton of Valais and a secondary residence in the canton of Vaud since 16.01.2020. The tax authorities of the canton of Vaud claimed the main tax domicile starting with the 2022 tax period. The taxpayer filed an appeal, which was upheld in last instance by the cantonal administrative court of the canton of Vaud. Regarding the direct federal tax domicile, the administrative court referred the matter to the Federal Tax Administration (FTA) for reconsideration. In the area of cantonal and municipal taxes, the matter was referred back to the tax administration of the canton of Vaud.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_927/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning recusal request
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ filed multiple recusal requests against members of the Cantonal Court and the Superior Court of Obwalden in the context of a criminal proceeding, including against the Superior Court President II, Daniela Widmer. Among other things, criminal complaints were filed, some of which were directed against President Widmer. The latter did not entertain the recusal request in a recusal proceeding concerning her own request. In the appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, A.________ requested annulment of this decision and reassessment by an independent instance.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_1379/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning recusal request
Summary of the Facts
The appellants A.A.________ and B.A.________ filed criminal complaints in February 2025 against persons from the prosecution authority of the canton of Obwalden and requested the recusal of all cantonal criminal authorities. Subsequently, the vice-president of the Superior Court of the canton of Obwalden, Ruth von Rotz, took over the conduct of the proceedings. After further criminal complaints were filed, the appellants filed a recusal request against Ruth von Rotz, which was dismissed by the Superior Court of the canton of Obwalden.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_1383/2024: Non-admission of the appeal concerning hostage-taking and extortion
Summary of the Facts
The case concerns two separate appeals regarding a judgment of the Chambre pénale d'appel et de révision of the Court of Justice of the canton of Geneva. Among other things, the offenses of hostage-taking, extortion, coercion, and attempted robbery-extortion were at issue. The lower court partially acquitted and reduced penalties. The Federal Supreme Court assesses both the appeal of the Geneva public prosecutor and the appeal of a defendant regarding the imposed sentence and the crediting of substitute measures.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
6B_135/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning admissibility of video recordings
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted by the Police Court of the canton of Geneva, among other things, for threat (Art. 180 para. 1 and para. 2 lit. a SCC). The sentence was 30 daily fines of CHF 50 with a probation period of three years. The dispute before the Federal Supreme Court concerned mainly the admissibility of video recordings secretly made by the injured party B.________ and used as evidence against A.________.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_1267/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning recusal request
Summary of the Facts
A.A. and B.A. filed criminal complaints against various persons from the prosecution authorities of the canton of Obwalden and applied for their recusal as well as the appointment of an extraordinary deputy public prosecutor. The Superior Court President II of the Superior Court Obwalden transferred the proceedings to the vice-president of the court after a complaint against herself. The request of A.A. and B.A. for annulment of the previous official acts of the Superior Court President was not dealt with by her decision. The appellants filed an appeal against this with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
6B_378/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning qualified property damage and fraud
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted by the Police Court of the district of Lausanne on 17 July 2025 for qualified property damage and fraud to a prison sentence of twelve months. The lower court, the criminal chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court, confirmed this judgment on 11 February 2026 and dismissed the appeal of A.________. The core of the case concerned the intentional damage of a rented residential property and fraudulent behavior in the dissolution of a registered partnership with B.________ and the agreement on a payment of CHF 18,000 by the former partner.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
1C_548/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning cost allocation in water pollution
Summary of the Facts
The water pollution caused by heating oil in Belmont-sur-Lausanne on 9 January 2020 led to contamination of the Paudèze and Lake Geneva. Extensive emergency measures were carried out to combat the pollution. The costs were borne by the canton of Vaud. Later, an official cost allocation was made by the Direction générale de l'environnement (DGE), which obligated several involved parties to bear costs to varying extents. A.________ SA challenged this cost allocation, which was dismissed by the cantonal administrative court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_1149/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning file inspection and stay in criminal proceedings
Summary of the Facts
A.________, who was charged in a criminal proceeding for attempted coercion and defamation, repeatedly requested file inspection as well as the stay of proceedings before the Cantonal Court Presidium II in Obwalden. The background was allegedly incomplete and defective case files, especially in connection with an electronic file transfer. Numerous recusal requests and appeals against the dismissive decisions of the Cantonal Court and Superior Court of Obwalden failed at the lower instance.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_1007/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning accessory intervention in inheritance law
Summary of the Facts
The judgment concerns an inheritance dispute following the death of K.B.________ in 2018. The deceased had made arrangements in a will and inheritance contract regarding the distribution of his assets and the management of his children's funds. A.________, a son of the widow from another relationship, applied as an accessory intervention to participate in the ongoing proceedings in which the validity of the will and inheritance contract was questioned. Both the first-instance court and the cantonal court had rejected A.________'s application, as he could not sufficiently demonstrate his legal interest in the intervention.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_367/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning custody and visitation rights
Summary of the Facts
The dispute over measures to protect the marital community between A.A.________ (father) and B.A.________ (mother) mainly concerned custody, visitation rights, and the division of parental responsibility for the three children (2008, 2012, 2015). The mother applied for sole custody, while the father requested alternating custody. After extensive investigations and reports, the court decided to grant sole custody to the mother, with the father's contact with the children being severely restricted.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
9C_173/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning jurisdiction of the FTA under Art. 108 DBG
Summary of the Facts
The spouses A.A. and B.A. were assessed for the direct federal tax by the cantons of Ticino and Graubünden for the tax periods 2016 and 2017, as both cantons assumed personal affiliation. The Federal Tax Administration (FTA) was requested by the taxpayers to determine the place of assessment pursuant to Art. 108 DBG. The FTA suspended this procedure until the procedure concerning state and municipal taxes in the canton of Ticino became final. The Federal Administrative Court lifted the FTA's suspension decision. The FTA appealed this to the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_913/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning recusal request and appointment of an extraordinary deputy chief public prosecutor
Summary of the Facts
B.A.________ and A.A.________ filed criminal complaints for abuse of office and violation of official secrecy and requested the recusal of all prosecution authorities of the canton of Obwalden. The Superior Court of the canton of Obwalden granted the recusal request and appointed an extraordinary deputy chief public prosecutor. The appellants filed a criminal appeal and requested, among other things, a different composition of the investigative authority.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
6B_917/2024: Non-admission of the appeal concerning desecration and sexual harassment
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a physician, was accused of desecration and sexual harassment during a treatment session. The victim, B.________, stated that during a doctor-patient appointment, she was massaged and indecently touched, including unsolicited touching of the labia, removal of underwear, and other physical assaults. The appellant denied the allegations and spoke of misunderstandings and a consensual full-body massage outside the medical context.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
4A_113/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning repayment of loans
Summary of the Facts
Parties: A.________ (appellant), B.________ S.à.r.l. (respondent) Main issue: dispute over repayment of loans related to a real estate project and fees of an architectural firm (D.________ SA). The respondent claims CHF 120,000, allegedly disbursed as several loans to the appellant. Lower instances: The Chambre patrimoniale of the canton of Vaud dismissed the claim by B.________ S.à.r.l. (01.10.2024). The Cour d'appel civile of the canton of Vaud upheld the appeal of the respondent and ordered the appellant to pay CHF 102,315 plus interest (28.01.2026).
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_326/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning recusal request against the Superior Court President
Summary of the Facts
A.________ repeatedly filed recusal requests against members of the Cantonal Court and Superior Court of the canton of Obwalden in the context of a criminal proceeding, most recently against the Superior Court President I Stefan Keller in case BS 24/028. Reasons included alleged inadmissible destruction of files, faulty file management, and a criminal complaint filed by the appellant's parents against the Superior Court President. The Superior Court of the canton of Obwalden dismissed the recusal request dated 9 May 2025 by decision on 3 February 2026, insofar as it entertained it.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
6B_185/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning attempted grievous bodily harm and weapons law
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was found guilty by the District Court of Broye and North Vaud of attempted grievous bodily harm, threat, violation of the weapons law, and unlawful stay. He received a prison sentence of 35 months and was ordered to be committed pursuant to Art. 64 para. 1 lit. a SCC; additionally, he was banned from the country for 10 years. The appeal against this judgment before the criminal chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court was unsuccessful.
Full summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.