Supreme Court election delayed after judges’ relationship triggers review

The election of Switzerland’s entire Federal Supreme Court will move from the autumn to the winter session of 2026. The Judicial Commission of the Federal Assembly announced the delay on Wednesday after examining a past romantic relationship between two sitting judges.

The decision places the court’s renewal under parliamentary scrutiny at a sensitive moment. The terms of the current judges expire at the end of 2026, leaving the commission to complete its work while preserving the timetable for a winter vote. The committee said it needs more time for further investigations and wants to consider any decisions the Supreme Court may make on requests for review before submitting its nominations to Parliament.

The judges involved are Yves Donzallaz and Beatrice van de Graaf. Both plan to seek re-election. The inquiry follows a report commissioned by the Supreme Court’s administrative commission after the Weltwoche newspaper revealed the relationship in late April.

The episode brings personal conduct, institutional rules and the independence of Switzerland’s highest court into the same parliamentary process. The commission must now assess the available evidence before lawmakers decide who will serve on the court in the next term.

Four groups took part in the Judicial Commission’s hearing: the two judges, the Federal Supreme Court president and the authors of an independent expert report. Parliamentary services said the commission questioned the participants on Wednesday as it reviewed the circumstances surrounding the relationship.

The expert report was ordered by the court’s administrative commission. Its purpose was to establish the duration and nature of the relationship between Donzallaz and van de Graaf. The investigation focuses on whether the relationship amounted to a “long-term cohabiting relationship”.

That distinction matters under the Federal Supreme Court Act. The law treats such a relationship as incompatible with the judicial office. The commission has not announced a final finding on whether the legal threshold was met. It has also kept the nomination process open while the court considers any requests for review connected to the case.

The hearings give Parliament a direct role in assessing conduct at the top of the judicial system. Switzerland elects federal judges through the Federal Assembly, while the Supreme Court’s own administrative bodies handle internal institutional matters. The postponed vote reflects the commission’s decision to allow those processes to develop before it presents a final nomination proposal.

The legal test at the centre of the case is narrow, while its institutional consequences are broad. The Federal Supreme Court Act identifies a long-term cohabiting relationship as incompatible with judicial office. The current review must therefore establish facts about the relationship’s duration and character, rather than simply its existence.

The source report does not disclose the full findings of the independent experts or describe a final disciplinary decision. It records that the court’s administrative commission commissioned the report and that the Judicial Commission questioned its authors. That leaves the parliamentary panel with an unresolved evidentiary record as it prepares its recommendation.

The timing also creates a procedural link between the court and Parliament. The Judicial Commission said it wants to know whether the Federal Supreme Court will make decisions on requests for review before it adopts its nomination proposal. The winter election gives the committee additional time to take those decisions into account.

For the judges, the process remains active. Donzallaz and van de Graaf intend to stand for re-election, meaning their candidacies will be considered alongside the wider renewal of the court. Parliament must assess the two cases within the broader task of filling the Federal Supreme Court’s bench for a new term.

The postponed vote exposes the oversight chain governing Switzerland’s highest court. The Supreme Court’s administrative commission initiated the expert review, the Judicial Commission of both parliamentary chambers conducted hearings, and the Federal Assembly will ultimately elect the judges.

Each body has a distinct role. The court’s administrative leadership commissioned an examination of the relationship. Parliament’s Judicial Commission is now weighing the report, testimony and any relevant court decisions before making its nomination recommendation. The full Federal Assembly will then decide on the renewal of the court.

That sequence has raised questions about how judicial independence operates alongside parliamentary accountability. The commission’s delay does not decide the judges’ futures. It does, however, ensure that the nomination proposal can reflect developments in the review process and any decisions on requests for review.

The scrutiny began after Weltwoche reported the relationship at the end of April. A former Federal Court president has also called publicly for consequences, according to related reporting. The commission’s latest announcement confirms that the matter has moved beyond media reporting and internal examination into a formal parliamentary assessment.

The next decisive stage will come in the winter session of 2026. Before then, the Judicial Commission intends to continue its investigations and monitor any decisions by the Federal Supreme Court on requests for review. Its nomination proposal will follow once the committee has a clearer picture of the case.

The existing judges’ mandates expire at the end of 2026, so the delay compresses the remaining timetable without cancelling the renewal. Parliament will have to elect the full court during the winter session, while the two judges at the centre of the review maintain their intention to seek another term.

The commission’s decision also preserves uncertainty over the composition of the court. The source does not state whether either judge has been suspended, whether the expert report recommends action or whether the court has reached a conclusion about the alleged long-term cohabitation. Those questions remain for the relevant institutions to address.

For Swiss voters and litigants, the process will be watched through the lens of confidence in the Federal Supreme Court. The immediate outcome is procedural: a postponed election and a longer review. The substantive outcome will depend on the evidence, the court’s decisions and the Federal Assembly’s winter vote.