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 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 legal fields.
7B_196/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning the penal order
Summary of the facts
A.________ challenged a penal order dated 14 July 2025 issued by the Geneva public prosecutor. The lower court, the criminal chamber of the Geneva judicial authority, declared the cantonal appeal inadmissible, since such a penal order can be challenged by objection. A.________ filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court and also requested legal aid and suspensive effect.
Summary of the considerations
- R.1.1: According to Art. 42 paras. 1 and 2 BGG, appeals before the Federal Supreme Court must be clear and sufficiently reasoned. In particular, the appeal must clearly explain how the contested decision violates the law.
- R.1.2: The lower court declared the cantonal appeal inadmissible because an objection should have been raised against the penal order (Art. 354 para. 1 CPC). Additionally, the part of the appeal against a referral to the court of first instance was inadmissible, since such an order is not contestable.
- R.1.3: The appellant mainly argued on the substantive criminal charge and claimed a violation of Art. 29 para. 2 BV with regard to service. However, his objections did not meet the requirements for the appeal reasoning and did not demonstrate any legal violation by the lower court. Also, no legal violation was shown regarding cross-border service of an order.
- R.1.4: Due to insufficient reasoning, the appeal was declared inadmissible pursuant to Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b BGG.
- R.2: Since the appeal was obviously without prospects, the request for legal aid was rejected (Art. 64 para. 1 BGG). Court costs were set taking into account the appellant's financial situation.
Summary of the dispositive
The appeal was declared inadmissible, the request for legal aid was dismissed, and the court costs were imposed.
2C_116/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning detention pending deportation
Summary of the facts
The appellant, a Turkish national, submitted several follow-up applications (reconsideration requests, revision proceedings, qualified reconsideration request) after an asylum application had already been finally rejected; these were processed within the asylum procedures. Meanwhile, detention pending deportation was ordered against him, which the Federal Supreme Court had to decide on appeal. The appellant argued in particular that the detention pending deportation was inadmissible because the enforcement of the removal order was not foreseeable due to a pending asylum procedure.
Summary of the considerations
The Federal Supreme Court affirmed the admissibility requirements and examined the appeal in public law matters, as a significant interference with personal freedom exists. Regarding the foreseeability of enforcement: According to Art. 76 AIG, both foreseeability of removal and a ground for detention are necessary prerequisites for detention pending deportation. Reconsideration and multiple applications in asylum proceedings do not automatically exclude detention pending deportation, provided that enforcement of the removal remains foreseeable within a foreseeable period despite pending proceedings. The foreseeability of removal enforcement was affirmed: the appellant's previous applications were regularly and promptly processed. The SEM concluded the respective reconsideration procedure promptly. There were no indications of delays or factual obstacles to enforcement of the decision. Regarding proportionality of detention pending deportation: the interference with the appellant's personal freedom was deemed appropriate, necessary, and reasonable, especially since he had already gone into hiding and could not be trusted with milder security measures. Regarding compatibility with the ECHR: given a final removal order and a realistic removal perspective pursuant to Art. 5 no. 1 lit. f ECHR, the legality of detention enforcement was confirmed. Legal aid was granted to the extent that no court costs were charged. However, due to lack of a patent attorney, there was no entitlement to free legal representation.
Summary of the dispositive
The appeal was dismissed, and the request for legal aid was partly granted, while the request for free legal representation was rejected.
1C_292/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning provisional assignment of the small settlement Tägerst to the hamlet zone
Summary of the facts
In the canton of Zurich, there are numerous small settlements located outside the graphic settlement area in the cantonal land-use plan. With the ordinance on small settlements outside building zones (VKaB), these small settlements were assigned to provisional use zones. The small settlement Tägerst was assigned to a provisional cantonal hamlet zone according to Annex 1 of the VKaB. The appellants filed appeals before the administrative court and the Federal Supreme Court because they demanded that Tägerst be assigned to the building zone according to Annex 3 VKaB.
Summary of the considerations
(1) The appeal is admissible according to the formal requirements of the BGG, and the appellants are entitled to appeal. (2) According to Federal Supreme Court case law, small settlements outside building zones may only be assigned to certain zone types (e.g., hamlet zones pursuant to Art. 33 RPV) in exceptional cases. These correspond to non-building zones where construction measures are heavily restricted (R. 2.1 – 2.2). (3) The VKaB serves the provisional regulation of existing uncertainties in zone delimitation. The regulation focuses on conserving existing, not widely overbuilt settlement structures, where criteria such as historical appearance and settlement character are decisive. New buildings in hamlet zones are generally inadmissible; construction measures are primarily limited to the preservation and adaptation of existing buildings (R. 2.3 – 2.4). (4) For the small settlement Tägerst, the cantonal government assessed the settlement structure and assignment to the hamlet zone based on uniform criteria, in particular the small number of buildings, existing use, and rural character. The administrative court confirmed this assessment (R. 3.1 – 3.2). (5) The appellants’ complaints, especially concerning violation of the right to be heard due to omission of an on-site inspection, were dismissed by the Federal Supreme Court. The administrative court was able to decide sufficiently on zone qualification based on the available files (R. 4). (6) Finally, the Federal Supreme Court held that a provisional assignment of Tägerst to the cantonal hamlet zone appears sensible until a final assignment is examined in a cantonal procedure (R. 5).
Summary of the dispositive
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and imposed the court costs on the appellants without awarding party compensation.
9C_216/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning tax qualification of a shareholder loan
Summary of the facts
The appellant, resident in the canton of Solothurn until December 2021, was the sole shareholder of B.________ AG and additionally managing director of C.________ GmbH in Germany. The Cantonal Tax Office Solothurn qualified a loan from B.________ AG to the appellant amounting to 791,752.- CHF as a benefit in kind, as it considered it a simulated loan. The lower court dismissed the appellant's appeal and complaint against the tax offset.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_416/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning the suspension of an international mutual assistance procedure
Summary of the facts
The Ukrainian tax authority submitted mutual assistance requests concerning several Ukrainian companies as well as a Cypriot company to the Federal Tax Administration (FTA), based on Art. 4 and Art. 5 of the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (MAC). The FTA ordered mutual assistance. The companies concerned filed a complaint with the Federal Administrative Court to achieve the annulment of these orders or alternatively the suspension of the procedures until proceedings concerning Ukrainian banking secrecy initiated in Ukraine were completed. The Federal Administrative Court rejected the suspension request. The appellants brought the matter to the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_176/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning assignment of a small settlement to the hamlet zone
Summary of the facts
An ordinance of the cantonal government of the canton of Zurich (VKaB) provisionally assigned the small settlement Vorderbuchenegg to the hamlet zone. A.________ AG applied to the administrative court of the canton of Zurich to assign the plot of their parcel to the building zone, which the administrative court rejected. A.________ AG appealed the judgment to the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_318/2024: Non-admission of the appeal concerning 30 km/h zones on cantonal roads
Summary of the facts
The Security Directorate of Basel-Landschaft issued traffic police orders (introduction of 30 km/h zones) in the municipalities of Bottmingen, Oberwil, and Therwil in 2021. The Touring Club Switzerland (section of both Basels) and an affected resident filed complaints, which were dismissed by the cantonal government (2022) and later by the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft (2023). Before the Federal Supreme Court, they requested the annulment of the traffic orders or a referral for further clarification of noise protection issues.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_317/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning cost coverage of dental treatments
Summary of the facts
A.________ had filed an appeal with the Cantonal Court of the canton of Valais against a decision of the Office des sanctions et des mesures d'accompagnement (OSAMA) dated 29 October 2025, which rejected coverage of costs for dental treatments and imposed the costs for necessary treatments on the appellant. The Cantonal Court dismissed the appeal on 4 February 2026. A.________ then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_162/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning suspension and delay in proceedings
Summary of the facts
This concerns an appeal by A.________ against the decision of the Administrative Court of the canton of Zurich dated 6 February 2026. The appellant criticizes the suspension of proceedings by the district council of Dietikon and demands, among other things, compensation of 30,000 francs.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_657/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning outstanding amount from legal aid
Summary of the facts
The appellant, A.________, repeatedly filed appeals against an allegedly null decision of the cantonal authority regarding an outstanding amount of CHF 190 from an earlier grant of legal aid. The canton dismissed the appeal because the contested letters did not constitute legally binding decisions.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_320/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning extension of protective custody
Summary of the facts
The appellant, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, objected to the extension of his protective custody in the B.________ clinic, which was ordered by the child and adult protection authority (KESB) Münchwilen and confirmed by the cantonal court of Thurgau.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
5A_209/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning seizure notice
Summary of the facts
The appellant was prosecuted by the debt collection office Basel-Stadt. He initially filed a complaint against a seizure notice, which was dismissed by the lower supervisory authority. Subsequently, the Appellate Court of Basel-Stadt dismissed the complaint due to insufficient reasoning and declared subsequent submissions to be late. The appellant filed an appeal against this with the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2F_5/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning revision request of residence permit
Summary of the facts
The applicant, A.________, a Greek national, received an EU/EFTA residence permit for self-employment in Switzerland in 2018, which was extended until 2028. Due to the alleged absence of actual self-employment, the Migration Office of the canton of Zurich revoked her residence permit in 2024 and expelled her from Switzerland. Her appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Security Directorate and the Administrative Court of the canton of Zurich. The Federal Supreme Court held in judgment 2C_711/2025 that she had no right of residence either under the Free Movement Agreement or according to Art. 8 ECHR. With the present revision request, the applicant introduced new evidence to have the judgment 2C_711/2025 reviewed.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_930/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning allegations of bodily harm and breach of duty of care
Summary of the facts
A father (A.________) filed a criminal complaint against the mother (B.________) of his son (C.________) on 28 February 2024, alleging simple bodily harm (Art. 123 SCC), assault (Art. 126 SCC), and breach of duty of care or upbringing (Art. 219 SCC). The Geneva public prosecutor did not admit the appeal on 11 September 2024. The appeal filed by A.________ was dismissed by the criminal chamber of the Geneva Court of Appeal on 7 August 2025.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_552/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning claims for state liability
Summary of the facts
In December 2020, a landslide occurred in the municipality of Glarus Süd, causing repeated damages. In particular, in 2023 a large mudslide caused significant impairments, among others to the factory buildings of the appellants (A.________ AG and B.________ AG), resulting in rent losses and a usage ban. The appellants demanded compensation from the municipality of Glarus Süd. The municipality did not consider the state liability claim due to lack of jurisdiction, and the Glarus Administrative Court dismissed the appeal against this, seeing it as a private law dispute.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_31/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning non-admittance of a criminal complaint
Summary of the facts
A.________ filed an appeal against a decision of the Chambre pénale de recours de la Cour de justice de la République et canton de Genève dated 23 December 2025. This decision confirmed a non-admittance order of the Geneva public prosecutor dated 17 April 2025, which related to a criminal complaint filed for "violation of domicile rights, violation of privacy, and impairment of physical integrity". On 8 January 2026, supplemented on 26 January 2026, the appellant filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_389/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning EU/EFTA residence permits
Summary of the facts
The appellants, an Italian family (parents and twins), have been residing in Switzerland since 2012. They held EU/EFTA residence permits without employment, originally based on reported substantial assets. After several criminal convictions of the father, significant indebtedness of the couple, and a civil dispute over inheritance of assets, the applications for issuance of EU/EFTA settlement permits as well as renewal of residence permits were rejected by the cantonal authorities.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7F_6/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning revision of a Federal Supreme Court judgment
Summary of the facts
The appellants A.A. and B.A. have applied for revision of the Federal Supreme Court judgment 7B_19/2022 of 20.11.2023. In that judgment, the Federal Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against a non-admittance order of the public prosecutor and a corresponding cantonal decision. The revision applicants requested the repeal of the contested judgment and the conduct of a full criminal proceeding by an external public prosecutor.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_370/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning rejection of application for Certificate of Applied Statistics
Summary of the facts
An applicant with a university degree from Mali submitted an application for the spring semester 2025 for the "Certificate of Applied Statistics" at the University of Geneva after a failed admission to the master's program at University X.________ (Switzerland) and further unsuccessful study attempts in Switzerland and France. The university rejected his application as well as his subsequent objection. The lower court, the Administrative Court of Geneva, confirmed the rejection.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_597/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning driving license revocation
Summary of the facts
On 9 December 2019, A.________ caused a traffic accident by hitting a motor scooter parked in front of him with his vehicle. The cantonal authority for vehicles and navigation (SAN) classified the behavior as a medium-severity violation and revoked A.________’s driving license for one month by order dated 9 March 2020. After A.________ filed an appeal, the administrative procedure was suspended until the criminal proceedings were completed. The criminal proceedings ended with a final conviction for simple traffic rule violation. The CDAP of the canton of Vaud confirmed the driving license revocation.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_85/2025: Upholding the appeal concerning cost decision in the remand case of disability insurance
Summary of the facts
The IV office Basel-Landschaft ordered the granting of a limited full disability pension as well as child pensions for A.________. After a complaint by the insured, the Cantonal Court Basel-Landschaft annulled the order and referred the case back for supplementary clarification of the medical facts, imposed procedural costs half on the appellant, and granted him a reduced party compensation. A subsequent new order of the IV office was not challenged. With an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the cost decision of the Cantonal Court, especially the cost allocation and reduction of party compensation.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_347/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning disability insurance benefits
Summary of the facts
The appellant A.________ applied several times for disability insurance benefits, most recently on 25 September 2024 referring to the worsening of an existing gonarthrosis in the right knee. The competent cantonal disability insurance office did not enter into the new request on 27 January 2025. After unsuccessful further appeal to the cantonal court, which dismissed the appeal, A.________ turned to the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_597/2024: Non-admission of the appeal concerning building permit for single-family house
Summary of the facts
The owners B.B.________ and C.B.________ applied for a building permit for a single-family house in the municipality of Rüttenen. The neighbor A.________ filed an objection against the building permit. The building commission, the Building and Justice Department of the canton of Solothurn, as well as the Administrative Court of the canton of Solothurn dismissed the objections. The neighbor then filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
9C_73/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning inter-cantonal double taxation
Summary of the facts
The proceedings concern inter-cantonal double taxation regarding state and municipal taxes for the tax periods 2012–2016. The spouses A.A.________ and B.A.________ reportedly lived in the canton of Zug since 2004, while the canton of Zurich expressed doubts about their tax residence from 2021. The Zurich tax office then opened a supplementary tax assessment procedure and claimed tax sovereignty for the period-related state and municipal taxes. The lower court decided in favor of the taxpayers and rejected the tax sovereignty of Zurich.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_182/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning driving license revocation
Summary of the facts
The appellant A.________ opposed a 13-month driving license revocation imposed on him by the Road Traffic and Navigation Office of the canton of Fribourg. The Cantonal Court declared his appeal inadmissible because he paid the agreed second installment of the requested advance fee late.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
7B_55/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning non-admittance order of the Geneva public prosecutor
Summary of the facts
A.________ filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against a decision of the criminal chamber of the Geneva Cantonal Court dated 15 December 2025 (ACPR/1054/2025), which dismissed his appeal against a non-admittance order of the Geneva public prosecutor dated 30 October 2025.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
8C_729/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning refusal of a disability pension
Summary of the facts
The appellant, born in 1984, registered with the IV office of the canton of Zurich to claim benefits because he was no longer able to pursue his previous occupation due to health complaints (including multiple sclerosis). After a detailed investigation, including a multidisciplinary report (Swiss Medical Assessment- and Business Center AG, SMAB), the IV office rejected the appellant's benefit claim. The lower court (Social Insurance Court of the canton of Zurich) confirmed this order, which was challenged by appeal to the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_129/2025: Upholding the appeal concerning non-extension of the EU/EFTA residence permit
Summary of the facts
The appellant, a Polish national, entered Switzerland in 2009 and has repeatedly received EU/EFTA residence permits since then. After his involuntary unemployment at the end of January 2018, he received unemployment benefits until he reached the age of 65 in April 2020. Subsequently, he received pensions from Poland, Greece, and Switzerland as well as supplementary benefits. His application for extension of the residence permit beyond 30 June 2024 was rejected by the Migration Office of the canton of Solothurn; an appeal against this was dismissed by the Administrative Court of the canton of Solothurn.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
1C_515/2025: Non-admission of the appeal concerning building permit
Summary of the facts
The appellant, owner of agricultural parcels in the municipality of Le Flon, carried out various construction and design works without a building permit. These include, among others, composts, a technical room, a terrace, a fountain, and a seating area. He subsequently applied for a building permit, which was only partly granted. After the negative decisions of the lower courts, he requested the Federal Supreme Court to annul these decisions and grant permits for all contested buildings.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.
2C_213/2026: Non-admission of the appeal concerning reinstatement of suspensive effect
Summary of the facts
The twelve-year-old appellant was expelled from her primary school and assigned to the SIM school, a special compulsory schooling offer. Her appeal to the Education and Cultural Directorate of the canton of Bern did not result in reinstatement of suspensive effect on a super-provisional basis. The Administrative Court of the canton of Bern dismissed her appeal against this decision, after which she requested reinstatement of the suspensive effect before the Federal Supreme Court.
The full summary of the judgment can be found in the portal.