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 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 areas of law.
4A_174/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning legal assistance and service of judicial documents
Summary of the facts
The appellant challenged several files in connection with the service of judicial documents by means of legal assistance in proceedings in the United Kingdom. She argued in particular that she had not been served with a reasoned and contestable decision on the granting of legal assistance, and alleged violations of the right to be heard, the guarantee of legal recourse, and the HZUe65.
Summary of the considerations
(E.1) Switzerland and the United Kingdom are contracting states of the HZUe65. The convention regulates the transmission and execution of service by the central authority of the requested state. (E.2) The Federal Supreme Court reviews the admissibility of the appeal ex officio and with free assessment of the evidence. (E.2.1) The appeal in civil matters is admissible against decisions and against the unlawful refusal or delay of a contestable decision. (E.2.1.1) The appellant challenges various orders, the certificate of service, the service itself, and alternatively a denial of justice. (E.2.1.2.1) The service by legal assistance itself is a factual act and not an admissible object of appeal. However, the authorities of the requested state examine the conditions for legal assistance and decide on its granting or refusal. (E.2.1.2.2) The doctrine partially affirms an appeal possibility; the Federal Supreme Court had so far left this question open. (E.2.1.2.3) The HZUe65 contains neither a remedy against the decision of the central authority nor a claim to a contestable legal assistance decision. The parties to the main proceedings are generally not involved in the administrative international service procedure. (E.2.1.2.4) The acceleration and simplification of international service argue against an appeal possibility. The review competence of the central authority is essentially limited to formal requirements as well as the sovereignty rights and security of the requested state. (E.2.1.2.5) The case law on the HBewUe70 is not transferable because this convention provides for individual protective rights of the parties and allows their participation in the legal assistance procedure. (E.2.1.3) The HZUe65 excludes legal protection of the parties to the main proceedings against the legal assistance decision. Subsequent legal protection is possible in the main proceedings and in any recognition procedure. (E.2.1.4) Due to the lack of an appeal possibility, there is no suitable object of appeal. Since there is no claim to a contestable legal assistance decision, a denial of justice appeal is also not possible. The appeal is inadmissible. (E.3) The appeal is not admitted. The court costs are imposed on the appellant; no party compensation is awarded.
Summary of the dispositive
The appeal is not admitted. The court costs of CHF 20,000.-- are imposed on the appellant; no party compensation is awarded.
9F_17/2026: Revision of a Federal Supreme Court judgment due to allegedly unconsidered documents
Summary of the facts
The applicant submitted a revision request against a Federal Supreme Court judgment, which had dismissed his appeal due to insufficient legal reasoning. He relied on Art. 121 lit. d BGG and argued that the Federal Supreme Court had inadvertently failed to consider significant facts in the files; he also applied for legal aid.
Summary of the considerations
(E. 1) The earlier Federal Supreme Court judgment did not enter into the appeal due to lack of fulfillment of reasoning requirements. The revision request was submitted timely and supplemented. (E. 2.1) A revision is only permissible for a conclusively legally provided revision ground, which must relate to the subject matter of the judgment to be revised. (E. 2.2) Art. 121 lit. d BGG requires that the court has inadvertently failed to consider a significant fact in the files; the request must be filed within 30 days. (E. 2.3) The submission dated 21 August 2026 was timely. (E. 2.4) Since the applicant related the revision ground in due time to the non-admission reason, the revision request was admitted. (E. 2.5) The alleged incorrect assessment of the sufficiency of reasoning concerns a legal question and not an oversight within the meaning of Art. 121 lit. d BGG. The mentioned files could not in any case have supplemented or compensated for the insufficient appeal reasoning; therefore, the revision ground is not present. (E. 2.6) The revision request is to be dismissed. (E. 3) Legal aid is not granted due to lack of prospects; exceptionally, no court costs are charged, so the application for legal aid is moot.
Summary of the dispositive
The revision request is dismissed. No court costs are charged; the application for legal aid is moot.
8C_424/2026: Accident causality of complaints in both ankle joints
Summary of the facts
The appellant was insured with Suva against accident consequences. After an accident while loading boxes, he initially complained of knee and head complaints and later of complaints in both ankle joints. Suva terminated the statutory benefits as of 20 February 2025 because the complaints still claimed were no longer accident-related. The Lucerne Cantonal Court dismissed the appeal against this decision.
Summary of the considerations
(E.1) The appeal in public law matters is admissible due to alleged legal violations; the Federal Supreme Court applies the law ex officio and generally examines only the alleged complaints. In the case of monetary benefits of accident insurance, it is not bound by the factual findings of the lower court. (E.2) The dispute is whether the case closure as of 20 February 2025 was lawful; the sole issue to be decided is the accident causality of the complaints in both ankle joints claimed thereafter. (E.3) The lower court correctly presented the principles on natural causality, liability for aggravation, and the evidentiary value of medical reports and internal insurance statements. (E.4.1) The Suva medical statement is fully probative. The instability of both ankle joints documented for the first time about five months after the accident cannot be attributed to the accident due to lack of corresponding findings at the initial consultations; any accident consequences would have healed after six weeks. (E.4.2) The appellant argues that the rudimentary initial reports did not allow a reliable determination of the absence of complaints and that the accident was at least a partial cause of the persistent complaints. (E.4.3) The appellant does not demonstrate any incorrect factual finding or violation of the rules of evidence assessment. A significant trauma would have had to manifest already at the initial consultations through swelling, bruising, or other typical signs. The lower court was therefore entitled to reject an accident-related cause of the later certified complaints and to assume only a temporary aggravation of the pre-existing condition. (E.4.4) The appeal is manifestly unfounded and is disposed of in summary proceedings with a brief reasoning. (E.5) The court costs are imposed on the losing appellant.
Summary of the dispositive
The appeal was dismissed. The court costs of CHF 800.- were imposed on the appellant.
5A_719/2026: Legal aid in proceedings concerning official liquidation of an estate
Summary of the facts
A.________ applied within the framework of an appeal against a decision of the Geneva Justice of the Peace for legal aid for proceedings concerning the official liquidation of her mother's estate. The vice-president of the Civil Court rejected the application; the Cour de justice confirmed this decision. A.________ then lodged an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court and also applied for legal aid for the Federal Supreme Court proceedings.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_970/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning discontinuation of a criminal investigation for simple bodily injury
Summary of the facts
The appellant filed a criminal complaint against an unknown perpetrator because a mobile phone or another electronic device had allegedly been held to his right ear, causing tinnitus. The public prosecutor discontinued the investigation for simple bodily injury; the cantonal court dismissed the appeal against this decision, insofar as it admitted it. The appellant then lodged an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_513/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning late appeal in unemployment insurance
Summary of the facts
A.________ filed an appeal on 14 July 2026 against the decision of the Neuchâtel Cantonal Court dated 11 June 2026 concerning unemployment insurance, which was served on him on 13 June 2026. The appeal was submitted after the expiration of the thirty-day appeal deadline, which ended on 13 July 2026.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_375/2026: Tax waiver in case of available funds and lack of reserves formation
Summary of the facts
The taxpayer requested a full waiver of outstanding state and municipal taxes for the tax periods 2022 and 2023. The Finance Directorate granted a partial waiver; the Cantonal Court dismissed the appeal against this decision because, despite a waiver situation, available funds existed during the tax periods without reserves having been formed. The taxpayer then lodged an appeal in public law matters, alternatively a subsidiary constitutional complaint, with the Federal Supreme Court.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_1032/2026: Postponement of sentence commencement due to family and economic burdens
Summary of the facts
The appellant was sentenced to two years and ten months imprisonment for rape, sexual coercion, and attempted coercion. After the Juvenile and Adult Court rejected his request for postponement of sentence commencement, the Administrative Court set the sentence commencement date to 25 August 2026. The appellant applied to the Federal Supreme Court for the annulment of this decision and a further postponement due to family, professional, and economic disadvantages.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_402/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning advance payment of costs and legal aid
Summary of the facts
A.________ filed an appeal against a decision of the Tribunal cantonal of the Republic and Canton of Neuchâtel. After his application for legal aid was rejected and a non-extendable deadline was set for payment of the advance payment of costs, he filed a supplementary appeal and a new application for legal aid without paying the advance payment of costs.
The complete summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.