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 with facts, considerations, and dispositives. For the other judgments, you will find a summary of the facts each time. 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.
4D_58/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning legal opening
Summary of the facts
The complainant turned to the Federal Supreme Court against a decision of the Higher Court of the Canton of Solothurn, which had not admitted his complaint against a legal opening decision of the President of the District Court of Olten-Gösgen.
Summary of the considerations
The Higher Court of the Canton of Solothurn did not admit the complainant's complaint against the legal opening decision of the President of the District Court Olten-Gösgen, whereupon the complainant lodged a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court. The submission to the Federal Supreme Court obviously did not meet the justification requirements according to Art. 42 para. 2 and Art. 106 para. 2 BGG. The Federal Supreme Court did not admit the complaint in the simplified procedure pursuant to Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b BGG. The reasoning of the decision contains only the indication of the inadmissibility ground according to Art. 108 para. 3 BGG. The complainant's implicit request for legal aid and representation was dismissed as hopeless (Art. 64 para. 1 BGG). Due to the outcome of the proceedings, the complainant was ordered to pay the court costs. No party compensation was granted since the respondent did not incur any expense.
Summary of the dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court did not admit the complaint, dismissed the request for legal aid, and imposed the court costs on the complainant. No party compensation was granted.
8C_140/2026: Decision on adjustment of suspension duration in entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits
Summary of the facts
The 1982-born A.________ registered for employment mediation in November 2024 and applied for unemployment benefits. Due to late-submitted job search efforts for the control period February 2025, the Cantonal Office of the Employment Office Schaffhausen (KAST) suspended A.________’s entitlement for 7 days. The Higher Court of the Canton of Schaffhausen reduced the suspension period to 5 days, against which KAST filed a complaint.
Summary of the considerations
E.1: The complaint in public law matters enables review of legal violations pursuant to Art. 95 et seq. BGG. The Federal Supreme Court examines the law ex officio but generally focuses on the contested legal questions.
E.2: The point of dispute is whether the lower court violated federal law by reducing the suspension period from 7 to 5 days. The legal bases for the facts were correctly stated by the lower court.
E.3: The lower court relied heavily on the slight fault of the respondent and assessed the omission as marginal. At the same time, the activity in interim earnings and previous sanctions were weighted differently.
E.4:
- E.4.1: The omission (one or two days delay) does not justify sufficient fault mitigation.
- E.4.2: The lower court incorrectly applied Art. 45 para. 5 AVIV. Previous sanctions in the last two years (three suspensions) contradictorily underline the fault.
- E.4.3: The interim earnings of the respondent were insufficiently presented by the lower court and cannot sufficiently mitigate the fault.
E.5: The lower court exceeded its discretion by reducing the suspension duration without a valid reason.
E.6: The court costs are imposed on the losing respondent.
Summary of the dispositive
The dispositive overturns the decision of the Higher Court and confirms the objection decision of the Cantonal Office. Furthermore, court costs are imposed on the respondent.
4D_56/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning legal opening decision and legal aid
Summary of the facts
The complainant lodged a complaint against a decision of the Higher Court of the Canton of Solothurn, which did not admit his complaint against a legal opening decision of the President of the District Court of Olten-Gösgen.
Summary of the considerations
E.1: The Higher Court of the Canton of Solothurn did not admit the complainant’s complaint against the legal opening decision of the President of the District Court. E.2: The complaint addressed to the Federal Supreme Court does not meet the justification requirements according to Art. 42 para. 2 and Art. 106 para. 2 BGG. Therefore, the Federal Supreme Court decided not to admit the complaint in the simplified procedure (Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b BGG). E.3: The complainant’s request for legal aid and representation is dismissed as hopeless (Art. 64 para. 1 BGG). Court costs are imposed on the complainant (Art. 66 para. 1 BGG); since no hearing was obtained, no party compensation is granted (Art. 68 para. 2 BGG).
Summary of the dispositive
The dispositive dismisses the non-admission of the complaint as well as the request for legal aid and representation. Furthermore, court costs are imposed on the complainant and party compensation is denied.
4D_35/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning advance payment of costs
Summary of the facts
The complainant lodged a complaint against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Basel-Stadt dated 26 January 2026. The Federal Supreme Court set an advance payment of costs of CHF 500, which was not paid within the deadline. After granting a non-extendable grace period, the complainant also refused to make the payment.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4D_74/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning settlement of the proceedings
Summary of the facts
A.________ (respondent) submitted a filing regarding the decision of the Higher Court of the Canton of Bern, 1st Civil Chamber, dated 21 April 2026 (ZK 26 200). The Higher Court forwarded the filing to the Federal Supreme Court on grounds of jurisdiction. The Federal Supreme Court requested the respondent to clarify by 22 May 2026 whether she wishes a formal complaint procedure. On 21 May 2026, the respondent waived submitting a complaint.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4D_54/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning legal opening
Summary of the facts
The complainant contested a decision of the Higher Court of the Canton of Solothurn, which on 23 February 2026 did not admit his complaint against a legal opening decision of the President of the District Court. By complaint to the Federal Supreme Court dated 2 April 2026, the complainant sought review of this non-admission.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4D_60/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning legal opening
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________ lodged a complaint against a decision of the Higher Court of the Canton of Solothurn, Civil Chamber, which did not admit his submission regarding legal opening. Previously, the President of the District Court Olten-Gösgen had processed the definitive legal opening.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4D_38/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning advance payment of costs
Summary of the facts
The complainant lodged a complaint against the decision of the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich dated 2 February 2026. He was requested to pay an advance payment of costs of CHF 500.–. Despite a grace period until 6 May 2026, the advance was not paid.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_142/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning revocation of settlement permit
Summary of the facts
The judgment concerns the question of the legality of the non-renewal or revocation of the settlement permit of a French national (A.________), who has lived continuously in Switzerland since 1996. The settlement permit was revoked because the complainant was continuously dependent on social assistance and had significant debts. His objections regarding proportionality and the requirements for waiting again for the results of a new IV application were examined.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4D_43/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning legal opening decision
Summary of the facts
The complainant lodged a complaint with the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau against the legal opening decision of the President of the District Court Aarau dated 24 November 2025. The Higher Court did not admit the complaint by decision dated 25 February 2026. The complainant then filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4D_26/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning legal opening
Summary of the facts
The complainant lodged a complaint against the decision and judgment of the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich concerning legal opening. She requested an extension of the complaint deadline by one year, which the Federal Supreme Court rejected. Despite setting grace periods, the complainant did not pay the required advance payment of costs within the deadline.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_607/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning interlocutory decision in criminal proceedings
Summary of the facts
(1) There was a physical altercation between two groups, as a result of which A.________ (complainant) and B.________ (respondent 2) constituted themselves as private plaintiffs. The public prosecutor's office of the Canton of Zug discontinued the proceedings against both parties. The Higher Court of the Canton of Zug lifted the corresponding discontinuation decisions regarding A.________. A.________ then lodged a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_440/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning non-admission order
Summary of the facts
The complainant filed a criminal complaint against the decision of the Higher Court of the Canton of Bern, which had rejected his complaint against a non-admission order of the Regional Public Prosecutor's Office Oberland.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_307/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning late submission
Summary of the facts
The complainant filed a complaint against a non-admission order of the Public Prosecutor's Office Lucerne, which was answered by the Cantonal Court Lucerne on 30 October 2025 with non-admission. The contested order was served on the complainant on 10 November 2025. However, the complaint to the Federal Supreme Court was only handed over to the post on 19 February 2026 and was therefore late.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
4A_285/2026: Non-admission of the complaint concerning challenge of an arbitral award under Art. 393 lit. e CPC
Summary of the facts
The A.________ Sagl was fined CHF 31,200 in October 2025 by the Parity Commission of the Canton of Ticino for violations of various provisions of the generally binding collective labor agreement (GAV) for plastering and rendering work. After an arbitral award in April 2026, the penalty was reduced to CHF 16,200, supplemented by CHF 1,800 in control costs. The company improved time tracking, albeit incompletely, and it was taken into account not to unduly burden the company. By complaint dated May 2026, A.________ Sagl requested the annulment of the arbitral award and the penalty, based on an alleged violation of Art. 393 lit. e CPC.
Full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.