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 with facts, considerations, and dispositives. For the further judgments, you will find a summary of the facts only. 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.
8C_83/2026: Upholding the Appeal concerning Disability Insurance and Disability Pension
Summary of the Facts
The insured A.________ filed a claim for disability insurance benefits due to fibromyalgia in 2019, which was rejected by the responsible cantonal IV office. After submitting a new benefit claim in 2021 and corresponding expert assessments, the claim was also rejected by the IV office. In the cantonal proceedings, the lower court ordered an additional psychiatric expert opinion and granted the insured a full disability pension retroactively from May 1, 2022. The IV office appealed this judgment to the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the Considerations
- E.1: The Federal Supreme Court examined the formal requirements of the appeal and declared it admissible.
- E.2: In the context of the substantive examination, the Federal Supreme Court clarified that it applies the law ex officio, but only based on the facts established by the lower court, insofar as these are not obviously incorrect.
- E.3: The dispute concerns the insured’s entitlement to a disability pension in connection with her new benefit claim of November 29, 2021.
- E.4: The legal bases for disability, pension calculation, and for reconsideration or revision of pensions were presented and derived from previous case law. A significant change in health conditions or their impact on earning capacity is required to justify a pension revision.
- E.5: The lower court based its decision on a psychiatric expert opinion certifying full incapacity to work since 2019. However, these conclusions are not due to a significant deterioration of the health condition after the first decision in 2019, but to a divergent assessment of a substantially unchanged situation. A pension revision under Art. 17 para. 1 ATSG is therefore inadmissible.
- E.6: The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the expert opinion does not show any relevant deterioration of the health condition or its effects on working capacity. The appeal was therefore upheld.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal is upheld, the judgment of the lower court is set aside, and the decision of the IV office is confirmed. The court costs are imposed on the respondent to the appeal.
7B_274/2026: Upholding the Appeal concerning Inpatient Therapeutic Measure and Oral Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was convicted in 2015 of several serious sexual offenses and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, the enforcement of which was deferred in favor of an inpatient therapeutic measure. After an extension of this measure in 2020, it was terminated as hopeless by the Office of Correctional Services of the Canton of Basel-Stadt in 2023; however, an inpatient therapeutic measure was later ordered again. Following A.________'s appeal, the Federal Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Court of Appeal in 2025 and referred the case back for a new decision, whereupon the lower court again confirmed an inpatient therapeutic measure in 2026. A.________ then filed another appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the Considerations
- E.1: The requirements for a judgment on the merits are met, so the appeal is admissible. - E.2: The appellant alleges that the lower court unlawfully decided in writing and violated his right to be heard. The lower court relies on the fact that a written hearing according to the referral judgment is sufficient. - E.2.3: The right to be heard includes the right to submit evidence motions and to receive a comprehensible reasoning. - E.2.4: Appeals are generally oral proceedings, with exceptions exhaustively regulated (Art. 405 ff. CCP). - E.2.5: Referral decisions of the Federal Supreme Court bind the lower court to the points determined by the Federal Supreme Court. In this case, this concerned both legal and factual issues. - E.2.6: The lower court should have decided in the oral proceedings on recidivism prognoses and proportionality, as factual questions with significant developments had arisen after its previous judgment. - E.2.8: The lower court did not sufficiently examine the current circumstances and evidence motions and again violated the right to be heard. - E.3: The judgment is formally flawed, and the case must be remanded to the lower court for a new decision in oral proceedings, taking into account the current facts.
Summary of the Dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the lower court and referred the matter back for a new decision in oral proceedings. No court costs were imposed, and the canton must bear the costs of the legal representative.
2C_304/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Free Legal Aid
Summary of the Facts
A.________, an Austrian national, converted to Islam in 2018 and was criminally prosecuted on suspicion of supporting a terrorist organization and other offenses. The Federal Office of Police (fedpol) decided on March 20, 2026, to expel him from Switzerland and imposed an 18-year entry ban. Before the Federal Administrative Court, he requested free legal representation, which was denied. A.________ then filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the Considerations
- E.1: The Federal Supreme Court classifies the lower court's order as an interlocutory decision within the meaning of Art. 93 BGG. Although appeals in public law matters are generally excluded (Art. 83 lit. c nos. 4 and 1 BGG), Art. 11 para. 3 FZA permits the appeal due to the appellant's nationality. The interlocutory decision causes irreparable harm, so the appeal is admissible. - E.2: It is determined that the appeal must comprehensively fulfill the duty to allege and substantiate. A subsequent supplement to the appeal was rejected as late. - E.3: The Federal Supreme Court confirms the lower court's assessment that the application for free legal aid is hopeless because the expulsion and entry ban appear legally justified. Considering that the appellant remains radicalized and supports IS ideology, milder measures are inappropriate. The lower court did not violate federal law. - E.4: The lower court fulfilled its duty to provide reasons, and no violation of Art. 29a BV or Art. 13 ECHR was found.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal was dismissed, and the application for free legal aid and legal assistance was denied. Court costs were imposed on the appellant.
1C_164/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Police Treatment
Summary of the Facts
On May 1, 2020, the police in Zurich arrested A.________ during a poster campaign. Using cable ties and after a personal search, she was taken to a police station, detained for several hours, and subjected to identification procedures. A.________ claimed, among other things, violations of her fundamental rights and requested the determination of the unlawfulness of the police measures. The coercive measures court and the higher court dealt with the legal issues differently.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
8C_455/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Disability Insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed an appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern dated June 5, 2026, relating to disability insurance. By letter dated September 3, 2026, A.________ withdrew the appeal.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_58/2026: Upholding the Appeal concerning Disciplinary Sanction against a Lawyer
Summary of the Facts
A lawyer practicing in the Canton of Vaud (A.________) was reprimanded and sanctioned with a warning by the canton’s disciplinary authority because he had contacted a court-appointed expert directly by email during ongoing proceedings. A.________ argued that his inquiry was intended to secure evidence for a possible later extension of the proceedings. The Vaud Cantonal Court confirmed the warning, considering the direct contact with the expert a breach of professional duties and a disruption of the administration of justice. A.________ filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
4A_239/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Debt Denial
Summary of the Facts
A.________ filed a lawsuit for denial of a debt against B.________. This lawsuit was dismissed by the Regional Court Moesa on March 20, 2025. The appeal by A.________ before the II Civil Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Graubünden was also dismissed on March 9, 2026. Subsequently, A.________ filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court on May 11, 2026. A requested advance on costs was not paid despite multiple deadlines and subsequent extensions.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_253/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Asset Freezing Order
Summary of the Facts
A.________, holder of an account with Bank B.________ SA, was involved in criminal proceedings during which the Ministry in the Canton of Vaud issued an asset freezing order on October 16, 2025, covering various accounts, including his own. However, the notification of this order was not made directly to A.________ but only to Bank B.________ SA. A.________ claimed that he only learned of the measure on November 12, 2025, and that this information was insufficient to comply with the statutory deadlines for legal remedies. The cantonal appeals authority considered his later action as late and did not admit the appeal.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
9C_365/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Withholding Tax Refund
Summary of the Facts
The appellants, A.A.________ and B.A.________, did not file a tax return for the 2019 tax year, were fined, and subsequently assessed officially. Later, they requested the refund of withholding tax amounting to CHF 140,000 related to dividends of CHF 400,000 received from C.________ SA. This claim was rejected by the cantonal tax authorities and subsequently by the lower court on the grounds that the appellants violated their declaration obligation and acted intentionally.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_117/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Free Legal Aid
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ sought compensation from the Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève (HUG) for deficient medical care, especially regarding non-vaccination against hepatitis B and non-prescription of a GLP-1 medication. His related complaints were dismissed by the competent cantonal authorities for lack of breach of duty. The appellant requested free legal aid both in the cantonal proceedings and before the Federal Supreme Court. This request was rejected at all instances on the grounds that the proceedings had no sufficient prospects of success.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_134/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Extension of Residence Permit
Summary of the Facts
The State Secretariat for Migration refused a Brazilian national (born 1991) the permit to extend her residence permit (family reunification) and ordered her removal from Switzerland. The appellant filed a timely appeal with the Federal Administrative Court, which declared it inadmissible as late. The appellant then turned to the Federal Supreme Court and requested the annulment of the previous decisions.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5F_31/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Retroactive Grant of Free Legal Aid
Summary of the Facts
In case 5F_31/2026, the Federal Supreme Court was to decide on a renewed submission by A.________ requesting retroactive free legal aid in case 5A_481/2024 after an unsuccessful recourse against the indigent party B.________ was documented. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed B.________'s appeal against a decision of the single judge of the Cour d'appel civile of the Tribunal cantonal of the Canton of Vaud (5A_481/2024) on June 5, 2026, and denied his claim to free legal aid. Free legal aid for the prevailing party A.________ had then been declared moot, as the court assumed that the party compensation to be paid by B.________ was collectible. On July 2, 2026, A.________ requested correction of this decision because the recourse against B.________ failed due to asset insolvency (act of May 28, 2026).
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
8C_553/2025: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Supplementary Benefits to AHV/IV
Summary of the Facts
The appellant (born 2002), who suffers from early childhood autism, received supplementary benefits (EL) since April 1, 2020. After entering a care home, the compensation office Glarus (respondent) requested the submission of relevant documents. Due to a late notification, the entitlement to EL was recalculated from January 2024 but not retroactively to the entry into the home. The lower court dismissed the appeal against this decision.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_273/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Residence Permit in Family Reunification
Summary of the Facts
The Brazilian national B.A.________, born in 2006, spent his youth with his mother in Brazil after his parents separated. His father, A.A.________, who meanwhile lived in Switzerland and was married to a Brazilian woman, applied in June 2023 for a residence permit for family reunification for his son B.A.________. The competent authority of the Canton of Geneva refused this permit and ordered the removal decision. After unsuccessful cantonal remedies, A.A.________ and B.A.________ filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
1C_282/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Correction of a Birth Date in ZEMIS
Summary of the Facts
A Congolese national who sought asylum in Switzerland requested the correction of his birth date in the Central Migration Information System (ZEMIS). The State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) had adjusted his birth date after forensic age diagnostics. His appeal to revert to the original birth date was dismissed in the lower court proceedings. The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the SEM’s data records were compliant with data protection law.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_1108/2025: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Precautionary Measures in Divorce Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The appellant challenges the precautionary measures of the District Court of Zurich in divorce proceedings, which include the suspension of his visitation rights and a contact ban concerning one of his children. The Cantonal Court of Zurich confirmed these measures. The appellant then filed a civil appeal with the Federal Supreme Court aiming to lift the measures or to refer the case back to the lower court.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_287/2025: Upholding the Appeal concerning Residence Permit under EU/EFTA Right of Residence
Summary of the Facts
The Swedish national A.________ applied to renew her EU/EFTA residence permit under the right of residence without an existing employment claim. After retirement, she took up domestic work for her daughter and daughter-in-law. The State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) refused the extension and referred to possible abuse of rights and lack of employee status. The Federal Administrative Court upheld SEM's decision with differing reasoning and denied employee status under the Free Movement Agreement (FZA).
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_424/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Residence Permit and Free Legal Aid
Summary of the Facts
In the present case, the appellant A.________ requested an extension of his residence permit and applied for free legal aid. The Court of Appeal Basel-Stadt rejected the application due to lack of prospects of success and ordered the payment of a cost advance in two installments, threatening dismissal of the appeal if payment was not made on time. The appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against this decision.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_514/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Missed Deadline in Family Reunification Case
Summary of the Facts
The Migration Office of the Canton of Solothurn rejected the appellant A.________'s application for family reunification with his wife on May 4, 2026. The order was considered served on May 14, 2026, due to the "service fiction." The appeal submitted on May 30, 2026, was not processed by the Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn on June 19, 2026, due to late submission. A.________ requested the Federal Supreme Court to reinstate the deadline and to consider the appeal timely and to refer the case back to the lower court for substantive review.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_656/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Denial of Justice
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed a complaint pursuant to Art. 17 SchKG with the supervisory chamber of the courts of the Canton of Geneva on June 18, 2026. She then filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court on June 24, 2026, alleging denial of justice (Art. 29 para. 1 and 2 BV) and requested free legal aid. She justified this with the allegedly unjustified delay in decision-making by the cantonal supervisory authority.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2F_20/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Revision of a Federal Supreme Court Judgment
Summary of the Facts
The appellant (A.________) requested revision of a Federal Supreme Court judgment (2C_325/2026 of June 5, 2026), in which the Federal Supreme Court had declared an appeal inadmissible. The background was a decision of the Cantonal Court of Valais of April 22, 2026, which confirmed the preventive withdrawal of the appellant's medical practice license, limited to a single patient, and ordered a psychiatric expert assessment.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_734/2025: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Revocation of Residence Permit EU/EFTA
Summary of the Facts
The North Macedonian national A.A.________, married to a German citizen, received the EU/EFTA residence permit within the framework of family reunification. After separation from her husband, the Migration Office of the Canton of Zurich revoked her permit and ordered her removal from Switzerland and the Schengen area. After unsuccessful appeal to the Security Directorate of the Canton of Zurich and dismissal of an appeal before the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich, the appellant brought the case to the Federal Supreme Court.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
2C_427/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Extension of a Residence Permit
Summary of the Facts
A.________, a national of the Dominican Republic, received a residence permit on May 13, 2022, to stay with his Swiss wife. After separation, the Migration Office Zurich rejected the application for extension of the residence permit on July 3, 2025, and ordered his removal. Legal remedies filed against this were rejected by the Security Directorate of the Canton of Zurich and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
5A_781/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal concerning Protective Detention
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ was placed in precautionary protective detention pursuant to an order of the Justice de paix of the Lausanne District dated June 26, 2026. This measure was carried out in a psychiatric institution. A.________ filed an appeal against this order on July 6, 2026. On July 8, 2026, A.________ was transferred to another psychosocial medical center but soon after returned home independently. The Chambre des curatelles of the Tribunal cantonal of the Canton of Vaud dismissed the appeal by decision of July 16, 2026.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.
7B_990/2026: Partial Upholding of the Appeal concerning Detention Extension and Acceleration Obligation
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was accused of having committed several offenses, including gang and commercial theft, trespassing, and property damage (Art. 139 No. 3 lit. a and b SCC, Art. 186 SCC, Art. 144 SCC). He was initially held in pre-trial detention and then placed in preventive detention. The Canton of Bern repeatedly extended the preventive detention; the last extension was confirmed by the lower court.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found on the portal.