Latest Judgments of the Federal Supreme Court
Here you will find the most recent judgments of the Federal Supreme Court (FSCS) from bger.ch. For the first three judgments, we present detailed summaries with facts, considerations, and dispositive parts. 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 areas of law.
8C_255/2025: Upholding the Appeal Regarding the Calculation of the Assistance Contribution in Disability Insurance
Summary of the Facts
A.A.________, an insured person born in 1991 with trisomy 21 and celiac disease, receives a full disability pension as well as an allowance for helplessness. Since 2020, various investigations and referrals have led to disagreements about the calculation of the assistance needs, especially concerning social participation, leisure activities, and voluntary work. The IV office of the canton of St. Gallen set the assistance contribution in March 2024; however, the insurance court of the canton of St. Gallen awarded a higher contribution.
Summary of the Considerations
- **E.1**: The appeal in public law matters permits the complaint of legal violations pursuant to Art. 95 BGG. The Federal Supreme Court examines the law ex officio and is bound by the factual findings of the lower court, except in cases of obvious errors. - **E.2**: The dispute concerns the determination of the need for assistance for extramural activities in the areas of social participation and voluntary work, whose calculation is reviewed according to the IVV. - **E.3.1-3.5**: The Federal Supreme Court finds that the calculation of the assistance needs is standardized by the FAKT2 instrument regulated in the circular on the assistance contribution (KSAB). This ensures an objectified calculation. - **E.4.1-4.2**: The lower court deviated from these specifications by setting the maximum minute value of each level without considering the FAKT2 methodology. Its calculation contradicts the principle of equal treatment. - **E.6.1-6.3.4**: The investigations by the IV office, based on reports from the RAD and other medical expert opinions, are recognized by the Federal Supreme Court as comprehensible. The lower court criticized the investigations of the IV office without substantiated reasons, violating the principle of evaluation of evidence. - **E.7**: Misjudgments on the part of the IV office were not demonstrated; therefore, the original determination of the assistance needs by the IV office is correct.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal of the IV office is upheld, the decision of the cantonal court is overturned, and the order of the IV office is confirmed. The costs of the proceedings are imposed on the respondent.
4D_67/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding the Eviction of a Tenant
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment of the Cantonal Court of Schwyz dated March 10, 2026, which dismissed the appeal against a decision of the District Court of Schwyz. The proceedings concern the eviction of a tenant.
Summary of the Considerations
The Cantonal Court of Schwyz had dismissed the appeal against the District Court decision of March 11, 2025. The appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court. The dispute value threshold for the appeal in civil matters pursuant to Art. 74 para. 1 lit. b BGG was not met. Instead, only the subsidiary constitutional appeal was possible, which can only complain of violations of constitutional rights. The appeal did not meet the formal justification requirements according to Art. 42 para. 2 and Art. 106 para. 2 BGG and contained no sufficiently substantiated constitutional complaint. Therefore, the appeal was inadmissible. The court costs were imposed on the appellant. No party compensation was awarded since the respondent incurred no expense in the federal proceedings.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal is not admitted, and the court costs are imposed on the appellant. No party compensation is awarded.
8C_262/2025: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding the Reclaiming of Unemployment Benefits
Summary of the Facts
An insured person in an employer-like position initially received unemployment benefits from the Unia unemployment fund. Later, the fund retroactively refused payments from April 2022 due to stock allocations that were credited as interim earnings. The Administrative Court of the canton of Schwyz partly ruled in favor of the insured, which the unemployment fund challenged with an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court.
Summary of the Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examines the admissibility of the appeal and affirms its admissibility. It classifies parts of the cantonal decision as partial decisions and others as interlocutory decisions. Legal bases pursuant to the BGG are clarified, especially the prohibition of new evidence (Art. 99 BGG), which applies in this procedure. It is determined which evidence may be considered. The dispute concerns whether the reclaiming of services provided from April 2022 was lawful and whether a stock allocation from 2023 should be attributed to earlier years. Despite deficiencies in record-keeping, the cantonal court considered the arguments of the unemployment fund. The Federal Supreme Court regards this as compliant with federal law. Definition of interim earnings according to Art. 24 AVIG: income is attributed to the time when the legal claim was acquired. The cantonal court correctly assessed the stock allocation as remuneration for work performed in 2020 and denied an attribution to the period from April 2022 onwards. The lower court was able to convincingly demonstrate the coherence and legal conformity of this interpretation according to the principle of trust. The application for free legal aid is considered moot due to the outcome of the proceedings.
Summary of the Dispositive
The appeal was dismissed, court costs were imposed on the appellant, and further requests were not admitted.
1C_153/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding Administrative Measure in Road Traffic Law
Summary of the Facts
A.________ was imposed a two-year waiting period by the Road Traffic Office of the canton of Lucerne for applying for another learner’s permit of category B. The Cantonal Court of Lucerne did not admit A.________’s appeal because he had not paid the requested cost advance. A.________ then filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, primarily requesting the annulment of the cantonal court’s judgment, arguing that with his change of residence to the canton of Aargau, the local and subject-matter jurisdiction of the canton of Lucerne no longer applied.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
5A_217/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding Cost Regulation in Return Proceedings
Summary of the Facts
The appellant (A.________) and the respondent (B.________) are parents of the child D.________, born in 2021. The mother traveled in 2025 with the child from Italy to Switzerland without the father's consent. The father applied for the return of the child to Italy under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (CArap). On February 25, 2026, the Child Protection Chamber of the Appellate Court of the canton of Ticino ordered the child’s return and obliged the mother to pay CHF 6,000.– to the father for his party compensation. The father filed an appeal against this decision, particularly against the shifting of his attorney’s fees to himself, and requested their assumption by the state.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
6B_533/2024: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding Negligent Homicide and Bodily Injury
Summary of the Facts
This Federal Supreme Court decision concerns appeals by three accused persons related to the events of a fire in the foyer U.________ in 2014. The accused were convicted at cantonal level, among other things, of negligent homicide and negligent bodily injury. The responsibility of each accused, their respective roles, as well as their obligations and omissions were central to the legal examination.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
2C_257/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding Asylum Law
Summary of the Facts
Turkish national A.________ filed an asylum application which was rejected in 2023 by the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM). A subsequent reconsideration request was also rejected in 2025. The Federal Administrative Court partially granted her rights in April 2026 concerning free legal aid and cost orders. She filed a new submission requesting revision of this judgment and again requested free legal representation. The Federal Administrative Court rejected this application with an interim order and required A.________ to pay a cost advance. A.________ filed an appeal against this with the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
5A_683/2024: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding Post-Marital Maintenance
Summary of the Facts
A husband filed for divorce in 2018. During the divorce proceedings, the parties concluded an agreement that included maintenance payments. However, this was later not approved. The husband applied for an adjustment of maintenance payments, but both the district court and the cantonal court rejected his applications and imposed higher maintenance payments on him. The dispute particularly concerns the determination of spousal maintenance.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
5A_460/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding Super-Provisional Measures
Summary of the Facts
C.________ filed on March 27, 2026, a request for the ordering of super-provisional measures concerning the rights of parents A.A.________ and B.A.________ to personal contact with their child. The president of the Civil Court of the District of Lausanne ordered on March 30, 2026, a restricted visitation permit for the parents and declared it immediately enforceable. A.A.________ and B.A.________ raised objections against this order and requested, among other things, the suspension of the measures, the annulment of the decision, and immediate authorization to have unrestricted contact with their child. They also requested the disqualification of the competent president.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
2C_264/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding Free Legal Representation and Legal Assistance
Summary of the Facts
Austrian national A.A.________ (born 2003) was expelled from Switzerland by the Federal Office of Police (fedpol) with reference to Art. 68 para. 1 AIG and banned from entry for 18 years. A.A.________ filed an appeal against this order with the Federal Administrative Court (BVGer) and requested free legal representation and legal assistance. The BVGer rejected this application with an interim order and set a deadline for payment of a cost advance, under threat of non-admission. A.A.________ filed an appeal against this interim order with the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
4A_43/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding Claim for Damages in the Context of Construction Defects and Site Management
Summary of the Facts
B.________ AG (respondent) asserted claims for damages against A.________ AG (appellant) due to construction defects and inadequate site management. The dispute concerned a series of branch buildings in which the plaintiff identified defects such as damp spots and cracks and asserted claims for damages, including pre-litigation costs. The defendant pleaded the forfeiture of claims due to late defect complaints and denied the plaintiff's standing to sue.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
7B_211/2025: Upholding the Appeal Regarding Non-Admission of the Criminal Complaint
Summary of the Facts
In 2021, A.________ filed a criminal complaint for defamation and slander against Father C.________ and another person, but later withdrew it following a canonical request. The public prosecutor's office of the canton of Obwalden ordered non-prosecution. In 2024, A.________ filed a new criminal complaint against B.________ for coercion related to the withdrawal of the first complaint. The public prosecutor's office again decided on non-prosecution, as the matter had already been legally dealt with by the prior decision. The Higher Court of the canton of Obwalden confirmed this decision. A.________ filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against this.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
2C_133/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding Admission to Study Law
Summary of the Facts
The appellant, A.________, was not admitted by the Department of Education and Culture of the canton of Bern to study law at the University of Bern. She filed an appeal with the Administrative Court of the canton of Bern and applied for free legal aid. Since she did not submit all required documents despite being requested and did not pay the cost advance, the Administrative Court did not admit her appeal. She then turned to the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
1C_238/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding Protective Measures Against Violence
Summary of the Facts
The Zurich Cantonal Police ordered, based on the Zurich Violence Protection Act, a contact and entry ban against A.________. The coercive measures court initially extended these measures provisionally and later definitively. The appeal filed by A.________ was dismissed by the Administrative Court of the canton of Zurich. A.________ filed an appeal against this judgment with the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
2C_334/2024: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding Revocation of Residence Permit
Summary of the Facts
The appellants, a Lebanese national and her daughter, entered Switzerland due to a marriage with a German citizen residing in Switzerland and received a residence permit B EU/EFTA. After the judicial dissolution of the marital household, the permits were revoked by the Migration Office of the canton of Lucerne. An administrative appeal against the revocation was declared inadmissible due to late submission by the Justice and Security Department of the canton of Lucerne. The Cantonal Court of Lucerne confirmed this decision. The appellants then brought the case to the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
1C_258/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding Access to Information
Summary of the Facts
The appellant A.________ requested access to official information on the basis of the cantonal law on information and data protection (IDG/ZH). His request was only partially granted by the Zurich Building Directorate. After an unsuccessful appeal to the Government Council, he filed an appeal with the Administrative Court of the canton of Zurich. The lower court did not admit the appeal as it was submitted late.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
1C_196/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding Free Legal Aid and Reissuance of Driving License
Summary of the Facts
A.________, whose driving license has been revoked indefinitely since 2015, applied in 2025 for the "lifting of the driving ban." The reissuance was made dependent on traffic medical and psychological conditions. After the Department of Economy and Interior of the canton of Aargau rejected a complaint, A.________ requested free legal aid from the Administrative Court of the canton of Aargau. This request was dismissed due to lack of prospects. A.________ filed an appeal against this order with the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
5A_162/2025: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding Change of Residence and Maintenance Payments
Summary of the Facts
The legal dispute concerns the change of residence of a child, the allocation of parental custody, the determination of visitation rights, and maintenance payments within the framework of matrimonial protection measures. The mother relocated the child's residence to T.________, which the father contested. He also challenged the modal regulations of visitation rights as well as the amount of maintenance contributions in favor of the child and the mother from previous cantonal instances.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
5A_684/2024: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding Post-Marital Maintenance
Summary of the Facts
A.________ (born 1971) and B.________ (born 1973) married in 1996. Three daughters were born during the marriage. The marriage lasted until separation in 2014 (18 years). The husband filed for divorce in 2018. The wife gave up her employment in 2001 due to her illness (Crohn's disease). The St. Gallen district court granted maintenance contributions to the wife and daughters in 2022. The St. Gallen cantonal court partially changed the maintenance amounts and dismissed the appeal and counter-appeal in other respects. The husband argued that the marriage was not life-defining and applied for reduction and temporal limitation of maintenance. Alternatively, he requested remand to the lower court.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
9C_203/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding Cost Advance in Health Insurance Law
Summary of the Facts
The appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against a judgment of the Administrative Court of the canton of Bern, which did not admit her administrative appeal. The non-admission by the lower court was justified by non-payment of the cost advance.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.
1C_207/2026: Non-Admission of the Appeal Regarding Referral Decision in Building Permit Procedure
Summary of the Facts
The appellants (A.________ and B.________) challenged a decision of the Appellate Court of the canton of Basel-Stadt, which dismissed their appeal against a referral decision of the Building Appeals Commission in a building permit procedure. The subject was the construction project of C.________ AG, which included the demolition of existing residential buildings and the construction of semi-detached houses.
You can find the full summary of the judgment in the portal.