Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset (SCD)

Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset (SCD) Codebook Florian Geering and Jakob Merane ∗ Version 2024-3 Abstract The Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset (SCD) provides a record of all 127,477 cases decided by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court between 2007 and December 2024. The SCD includes 31 variables that document basic case information, the court composition, the area of law, information about the appealed judgment, the parties, the case outcome, and about citations and publication status. The dataset can be used as data infrastructure for both qualitative and quantitative analysis of Federal Supreme Court jurisprudence. It is generated using a fully automated pipeline and updated regularly to include the latest judgments and possible expansions. Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 DatasetScope............................................. 3 1.2 Updates................................................ 3 1.3 Building on the Dataset and Judgment Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.4 Reliability............................................... 3 1.5 License................................................. 4 1.6 Citation................................................ 4 1.7 Disclaimer............................................... 4 1.8 Contact ................................................ 4 2 Description of the Variables 5 3 Case Variables 6 3.1 Case Number: docref ........................................ 6 3.2 Judgment URL: url ......................................... 7 3.3 Judgment Date: date ........................................ 8 3.4 Judgment Year: year ........................................ 9 3.5 Proceeding Type: proc_type .................................... 10 3.6 Merged Cases: merged_cases .................................... 11 ∗Florian Geering Faculty of Law, University of Zurich. Jakob Merane Center for Law & Economics, Department of Humanities, Social and Political Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich. Both authors contributed equally to this work. The order of authorship does not reflect primary or corresponding authorship. Thanks to Vandit Sharma for his outstanding research assistance. 1 4 Court Variables 12 4.1 Division: division .......................................... 12 4.2 Division Type: division_type ................................... 13 4.3 Number of Judges: n_judges .................................... 14 5 Judgment Variables 15 5.1 Language: language ......................................... 15 5.2 Judgment Length: length ...................................... 16 5.3 General Area: area_general .................................... 17 5.4 Intermediate Area: area_intermediate .............................. 18 5.5 Detailed Area: area_detailed ................................... 19 5.6 Topic: topic ............................................. 20 5.7 Issue: issue .............................................. 21 5.8 Date of Appealed Decision: source_date ............................. 22 5.9 Origin of Appealed Decision: source_canton ........................... 23 5.10 Duration of Federal Supreme Court Proceedings: proc_duration ................ 24 6 Party Variables 25 6.1 Appellant Class: app_class ..................................... 25 6.2 Appellant Representation: app_represented ........................... 26 6.3 Respondent Class: resp_class ................................... 27 6.4 Respondent Representation: resp_represented ......................... 28 7 Outcome Variables 29 7.1 Outcome: outcome .......................................... 29 7.2 Binary Outcome: outcome_binary ................................. 30 8 Citation and Publication Variables 31 8.1 Cited Unpublished Federal Supreme Court Judgments: cited_bger .............. 31 8.2 Number of Cited Unpublished Federal Supreme Court Judgments: n_cited_bger ....... 32 8.3 Cited Published Federal Supreme Court Judgments: cited_bge ................. 33 8.4 Number of Cited Published Federal Supreme Court Judgments: n_cited_bge ......... 34 8.5 Publication as Leading Case: leading_case ............................ 35 8.6 Version DOI: doi_version ..................................... 36 9 Release Notes 37 2 1 Introduction This codebook documents the 31 variables in the Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset. 1.1 Dataset Scope The Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset (SCD) includes all cases decided by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court between 2007 and December 2024 that have been made available on its website (N= 127,477).1The dataset is created automatically using a web scraper and natural language processing pipeline programmed in Python and R by Jakob Merane and Florian Geering. The SCD builds upon the datasets and code they used in their publications ‘Measuring Gender Composition in the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’2and ‘Do You Need a Lawyer?’3. The automated download of judgments respects the Robots Exclusion Standard (“robots.txt”). 1.2 Updates The Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset is updated regularly to include the latest judgments and possible expansions, depending on the availability of resources and the accessibility of data sources. These updates are identified by version numbers that consist of the year and the sequential update number, e.g. 2023-1 denoting the first version of 2023. To ensure reproducibility of your research, please include the version number of the edition you used when citing the Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset. This codebook documents version 2024-3. 1.3 Building on the Dataset and Judgment Texts The Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset is designed to serve as a basis for current and future research. It can be used as data infrastructure for both qualitative and quantitative analysis of Federal Supreme Court jurisprudence. While many analyses are possible with the SCD in its native form, some research requires additional variables. A variety of methods, including manual coding and automated content analysis, can be used to generate additional data to use with the Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset. For example, the SCD may facilitate the sampling process for research that qualitatively analyses dozens or hundreds of judgments: Judgments that should be included in the analysis can be identified and filtered using the variables in the dataset. The dataset also provides opportunities to supplement existing qualitative analyses with additional variables. On the other hand, the SCD can also be expanded with additional variables that are automatically extracted from the judgment texts. The standard .csv export of the SCD does not include judgment texts due to file size and encoding limitations. Starting with version 2023-4, we are providing a supplementary .parquet (Apache Parquet) file which includes an additional text variable that contains the judgment texts as strings and is otherwise identical to the standard export. This file is identified by the suffix -text in its file name and uses the Brotli compression algorithm. We recommend using the standard .csv export for most researchers and all applications which do not require accessing the judgment texts. As part of our commitment to open research data, we strongly encourage researchers who build upon the Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset to make their own data freely available to the research community. 1.4 Reliability The SCD builds on several years of work on Federal Supreme Court data, with a special emphasis on reliability and robustness. We manually tested multiple random samples of the judgments to determine the reliability of the variables. All variables achieved accuracy levels exceeding 98%. 1These are all cases that are ordinary dossiers under the Federal Supreme Court Act. 2Jakob Merane, ‘Measuring Gender Composition in the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’ (transl.) (2021) 10/2021 Schweizerische Juristen-Zeitung 511–16. 3Florian Geering, ‘Do You Need a Lawyer?’ (2021) 4/2021 Justice - Justiz - Giustizia, doi.org/hbkz. 3 1.5 License The Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset and this codebook are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). You may distribute, remix, transform, and build upon the Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset for any purpose, even commercially, but you are required to give appropriate credit by citing the Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset and may not introduce additional restrictions. 1.6 Citation We suggest you cite the Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset as: Florian Geering and Jakob Merane. (2025). Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset (SCD). Version 2024-3. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14867950. @misc{swiss_federal_supreme_court_dataset, author = {Geering, Florian and Merane, Jakob}, title = {{Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset (SCD)}}, year = 2025, edition = {Version 2024-3}, publisher = {Zenodo}, doi = {10.5281/zenodo.14867950}, url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14867950} } 1.7 Disclaimer The Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset is a research initiative to make the Swiss Federal Supreme Court decisions available in machine-readable form. The dataset and its authors are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Federal Supreme Court. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset is provided “as-is”, without any warranties of any kind. The authors disclaim all liability, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law. 1.8 Contact You can contact us with any questions or comments regarding the Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset. We are especially interested in hearing about applications of the SCD, and are also open to exploring potential collaboration opportunities. Find our contact information on our ORCID pages: Florian Geering Jakob Merane 4 2 Description of the Variables Variable descriptions are structured as follows: 1. Variable title and variable name In the codebook, variable titles are used to provide a more descriptive way of identifying variables, whereas variable names are used to identify columns in the dataset. Variable names and coded values are always set in fixed-width font. 2. Variable type Variable types are indicated to simplify data handling. The dataset contains strings, strings that may be treated as factors, booleans, dates, and integers. 3. Comments The comments describe what the variable encodes, how it is coded, and which values it may take on. 4. Examples The examples show the actual coding of a selection of cases. They contain an excerpt of the judgment text (where appropriate), the citation of the judgment, and (in fixed-width font) the variable and its value. 5 3 Case Variables 3.1 Case Number: docref Variable name: docref Type: String Comments •This variable corresponds to the unique case number assigned by the Federal Supreme Court. •Case numbers are always in the format: number encoding the division, letter encoding the proceeding type, underscore, number encoding a running tally of proceedings, slash, year; for example 1C_517/2016. •The case numbering system is described in the Secretary General’s document Numbering System for Case Files Since 2007 (de/fr). •Note that for judgments that were published as leading case, the reference to the published version of the judgment is coded in the variable leading_case. Examples •Example 1: 1C_517/2016, Urteil vom 12. April 2017, I. öffentlich-rechtliche Abteilung (1C_517/2016, Judgment head). →docref = 1C_517/2016 •Example 2: 6B_468/2011, Urteil vom 24. Mai 2012, Strafrechtliche Abteilung (6B_468/2011, Judgment head). →docref = 6B_468/2011 •Example 3: 5A_643/2017, Arrêt du 3 mai 2018, IIe Cour de droit civil (5A_643/2017, Judgment head). →docref = 5A_643/2017 6 3.2 Judgment URL: url Variable name: url Type: String Comments •This variable corresponds to the URL where the judgment is available on the Federal Supreme Court website and through which it was accessed. •The judgment URL may be useful to download full judgment texts or extract additional data. •The stability of these URLs may not be guaranteed long-term. However, note that the URL for any Federal Supreme Court judgment can generally be reconstructed from the date and docref variables when using the basic format of https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/ index.php?highlight_docid=aza%3A%2F%2F12-04-2017-1C_517-2016&type=show_document (compare with Example 1). •When accessing the Federal Supreme Court website programmatically, please use considerate scraping methods and respect the Robots Exclusion Standard (“robots.txt”). Note that the Federal Supreme Court website requires a 2-second delay between requests. Also consider using alternative sources such as the repository provided by entscheidsuche.ch. Examples •Example 1: 1C_517/2016. →url = https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/it/php/aza/http/index.php?lang=it&ty pe=highlight_simple_query&page=3&from_date=13.02.2017&to_date=13.04.2017&sort=relevanc e&insertion_date=&top_subcollection_aza=all&query_words=&rank=28&azaclir=aza&highlight _docid=aza%3A%2F%2F12-04-2017-1C_517-2016&number_of_ranks=1381 •Example 2: 6B_468/2011. →url = https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/it/php/aza/http/index.php?lang=it&ty pe=highlight_simple_query&page=125&from_date=21.05.2012&to_date=19.07.2012&sort=releva nce&insertion_date=&top_subcollection_aza=all&query_words=&rank=1248&azaclir=aza&highl ight_docid=aza%3A%2F%2F24-05-2012-6B_468-2011&number_of_ranks=1340 •Example 3: 5A_643/2017. →url = https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/it/php/aza/http/index.php?lang=it&ty pe=highlight_simple_query&page=73&from_date=06.04.2018&to_date=04.06.2018&sort=relevan ce&insertion_date=&top_subcollection_aza=all&query_words=&rank=728&azaclir=aza&highlig ht_docid=aza%3A%2F%2F03-05-2018-5A_643-2017&number_of_ranks=1331 7 3.3 Judgment Date: date Variable name: date Type: Date in YYYY-MM-DD format Comments •This variable corresponds to the judgment date indicated by the Federal Supreme Court in the judgment head. •It is coded in YYYY-MM-DD format. Examples •Example 1: 1C_517/2016, Urteil vom 12. April 2017, I. öffentlich-rechtliche Abteilung (1C_517/2016, Judgment head). →date = 2017-04-12 •Example 2: 6B_468/2011, Urteil vom 24. Mai 2012, Strafrechtliche Abteilung (6B_468/2011, Judgment head). →date = 2012-05-24 •Example 3: 5A_643/2017, Arrêt du 3 mai 2018, IIe Cour de droit civil (5A_643/2017, Judgment head). →date = 2018-05-03 8 3.4 Judgment Year: year Variable name: year Type: Integer year n percent 2007 3,492 2.7% 2008 7,026 5.5% 2009 7,043 5.5% 2010 7,229 5.7% 2011 7,119 5.6% 2012 7,381 5.8% 2013 7,523 5.9% 2014 7,235 5.7% 2015 7,396 5.8% 2016 7,446 5.8% 2017 7,442 5.8% 2018 7,760 6.1% 2019 7,663 6.0% 2020 7,501 5.9% 2021 7,238 5.7% 2022 6,882 5.4% 2023 7,089 5.6% 2024 7,012 5.5% Comments •This variable corresponds to the calendar year of the judgment date. •It is automatically derived from the judgment date variable date. Examples •Example 1: 1C_517/2016, Urteil vom 12. April 2017, I. öffentlich-rechtliche Abteilung (1C_517/2016, Judgment head). →year = 2017 •Example 2: 6B_468/2011, Urteil vom 24. Mai 2012, Strafrechtliche Abteilung (6B_468/2011, Judgment head). →year = 2012 •Example 3: 5A_643/2017, Arrêt du 3 mai 2018, IIe Cour de droit civil (5A_643/2017, Judgment head). →year = 2018 9 5.2 Judgment Length: length Variable name: length Type: Integer Comments •This variable corresponds to the length of the judgment text in characters. Examples •Example 1: 1C_517/2016. →length = 27279 •Example 2: 6B_468/2011. →length = 11087 •Example 3: 5A_643/2017. →length = 23988 16 5.3 General Area: area_general Variable name: area_general Type: String (factor) area_general n percent valid_percent Öffentliches Recht 71,404 56.0% 56.0% Privatrecht 25,325 19.9% 19.9% Strafrecht 30,695 24.1% 24.1% NA 53 0.0% - Comments •This variable corresponds to the general area of law dealt with in the judgment at low granularity. •The area_general variable takes on 3 different levels and is aggregated from the 24 levels in the area_intermediate variable, which is in turn aggregated from the 56 levels in the area_detailed variable. –For example, area_detailed = Invalidenversicherung is aggregated to area_intermediate = Sozialversicherungsrecht and area_general = Öffentliches Recht. •Area descriptions are always given in German. Every case is assigned only one area description. •Area descriptions are assigned by the Federal Supreme Court and were extracted from its website. Further differentiations between cases concerning procedural law were added starting with version 2023-4. Examples •Example 1: Ökologisches Gleichgewicht (1C_517/2016). →area_general = Öffentliches Recht •Example 2: Straftaten (6B_468/2011). →area_general = Strafrecht •Example 3: Droit des poursuites et faillites (5A_643/2017). →area_general = Öffentliches Recht 17 5.4 Intermediate Area: area_intermediate Variable name: area_intermediate Type: String (factor) area_intermediate n percent valid_percent Sozialversicherungsrecht 28,936 22.7% 22.7% Strafprozess 17,414 13.7% 13.7% Strafrecht 13,281 10.4% 10.4% Zivilrecht 12,054 9.5% 9.5% Obligationenrecht und Handelsrecht 11,616 9.1% 9.1% Schuldbetreibungsund Konkursrecht 9,358 7.3% 7.3% Bürgerrecht und Ausländerrecht 8,929 7.0% 7.0% Öffentliche Finanzen und Abgaberecht 5,631 4.4% 4.4% Raumplanung und öffentliches Baurecht 4,713 3.7% 3.7% Energie, Verkehr, Medien und Kultur 2,152 1.7% 1.7% Gesundheitswesen und soziale Sicherheit 1,865 1.5% 1.5% Öffentliches Verfahrensrecht 1,850 1.5% 1.5% Grundrecht 1,751 1.4% 1.4% Rechtshilfe und Auslieferung 1,509 1.2% 1.2% Öffentliches Dienstverhältnis 1,200 0.9% 0.9% Zivilprozess 1,041 0.8% 0.8% Unterrichtswesen und Berufsausbildung 864 0.7% 0.7% Ökologisches Gleichgewicht 813 0.6% 0.6% Politische Rechte 761 0.6% 0.6% Immaterialgüter-, Wettbewerbsund Kartellrecht 614 0.5% 0.5% Staatshaftung 479 0.4% 0.4% Wirtschaft 282 0.2% 0.2% Enteignung 239 0.2% 0.2% Sicherheitsund Friedenspolitik 72 0.1% 0.1% NA 53 0.0% - Comments •This variable corresponds to the area of law dealt with in the judgment at intermediate granularity. •The area_intermediate variable takes on 24 different levels and is aggregated from the 56 levels in the area_detailed variable. –For example, area_detailed = Invalidenversicherung is aggregated to area_intermediate = Sozialversicherungsrecht. •Area descriptions are always given in German. Every case is assigned only one area description. •Area descriptions are assigned by the Federal Supreme Court and were extracted from its website. Further differentiations between cases concerning procedural law were added starting with version 2023-4. Examples •Example 1: Ökologisches Gleichgewicht (1C_517/2016). →area_intermediate = Ökologisches Gleichgewicht •Example 2: Straftaten (6B_468/2011). →area_intermediate = Strafrecht •Example 3: Droit des poursuites et faillites (5A_643/2017). →area_intermediate = Schuldbetreibungsund Konkursrecht 18 5.5 Detailed Area: area_detailed Variable name: area_detailed Type: String (factor) area_detailed n percent valid_percent Strafprozess 16,638 13.1% 13.1% Invalidenversicherung 13,780 10.8% 10.8% Schuldbetreibungsund Konkursrecht 9,354 7.3% 7.3% Straftaten 9,273 7.3% 7.3% Vertragsrecht 9,132 7.2% 7.2% Bürgerrecht und Ausländerrecht 8,929 7.0% 7.0% Familienrecht 8,916 7.0% 7.0% Unfallversicherung 5,813 4.6% 4.6% Öffentliche Finanzen und Abgaberecht 5,631 4.4% 4.4% Raumplanung und öffentliches Baurecht 4,713 3.7% 3.7% Strafrecht (allgemein) 3,997 3.1% 3.1% Arbeitslosenversicherung 2,445 1.9% 1.9% Gesundheitswesen und soziale Sicherheit 1,865 1.5% 1.5% Altersund Hinterlassenenversicherung 1,829 1.4% 1.4% Grundrecht 1,751 1.4% 1.4% Strassenbau und Strassenverkehr 1,717 1.3% 1.3% Krankenversicherung 1,669 1.3% 1.3% Sachenrecht 1,525 1.2% 1.2% Berufliche Vorsorge 1,518 1.2% 1.2% Rechtshilfe und Auslieferung 1,509 1.2% 1.2% Ergänzungsleistung 1,357 1.1% 1.1% Zuständigkeitsfragen und Verfahrensgarantien 1,260 1.0% 1.0% Öffentliches Dienstverhältnis 1,200 0.9% 0.9% Obligationenrecht (allgemein) 1,155 0.9% 0.9% Other levels not shown in this summary table 10,448 8.2% 8.2% NA 53 0.0% - Comments •This variable corresponds to the area of law dealt with in the judgment at high granularity. •The area_detailed variable takes on 56 different levels. Aggregated versions of the area descriptions with fewer levels are available in the area_intermediate and area_general variables. •Area descriptions are always given in German. Every case is assigned only one area description. •Area descriptions are assigned by the Federal Supreme Court and were extracted from its website. Examples •Example 1: Ökologisches Gleichgewicht (1C_517/2016). →area_detailed = Ökologisches Gleichgewicht •Example 2: Straftaten (6B_468/2011). →area_detailed = Straftaten •Example 3: Droit des poursuites et faillites (5A_643/2017). →area_detailed = Schuldbetreibungsund Konkursrecht 19 5.6 Topic: topic Variable name: topic Type: String Comments •This variable corresponds to the topic of the judgment as indicated by the Federal Supreme Court. •Topics were extracted from the Federal Supreme Court website. For the description of the issue directly extracted from the judgment text, see the issue variable. Examples •Example 1: Gegenstand Kehrichtabfuhr, Beschwerde gegen das Urteil vom 16. August 2016 des Verwaltungsgerichts des Kantons Graubünden, 5. Kammer (1C_517/2016, Judgment head). →topic = Kehrichtabfuhr •Example 2: Gegenstand Sich bestechen lassen (Art. 322quater StGB), Beschwerde gegen den Entscheid des Bundesstrafgerichts, Strafkammer, vom 30. November 2010. (6B_468/2011, Judgment head). →topic = Sich bestechen lassen (Art. 322quater StGB) •Example 3: Objet validité de la poursuite (représentation de l’hoirie en cas d’urgence), recours contre l’arrêt de la Cour des poursuites et faillites du Tribunal cantonal du canton de Vaud du 16 août 2017 (FA17.001998–170529). (5A_643/2017, Judgment head). →topic = validité de la poursuite, représentation de l'hoirie en cas d'urgence 20 5.7 Issue: issue Variable name: issue Type: String Comments •This variable corresponds to the judgment issue as indicated in the judgment text. •It is extracted from the judgment head and generally includes the description of the topic. It also includes the name of the previous instance and the date of the appealed decision. Examples •Example 1: Gegenstand Kehrichtabfuhr, Beschwerde gegen das Urteil vom 16. August 2016 des Verwaltungsgerichts des Kantons Graubünden, 5. Kammer (1C_517/2016, Judgment head). →issue = Kehrichtabfuhr, Beschwerde gegen das Urteil vom 16. August 2016 des Verwaltungsgerichts des Kantons Graubünden, 5. Kammer. •Example 2: Gegenstand Sich bestechen lassen (Art. 322quater StGB), Beschwerde gegen den Entscheid des Bundesstrafgerichts, Strafkammer, vom 30. November 2010. (6B_468/2011, Judgment head). →issue = Sich bestechen lassen (Art. 322quater StGB), Beschwerde gegen den Entscheid des Bundesstrafgerichts, Strafkammer, vom 30. November 2010. •Example 3: Objet validité de la poursuite (représentation de l’hoirie en cas d’urgence), recours contre l’arrêt de la Cour des poursuites et faillites du Tribunal cantonal du canton de Vaud du 16 août 2017 (FA17.001998–170529). (5A_643/2017, Judgment head). →issue = validité de la poursuite (représentation de l'hoirie en cas d'urgence), recours contre l'arrêt de la Cour des poursuites et faillites du Tribunal cantonal du canton de Vaud du 16 août 2017 (FA17.001998-170529). 21 5.8 Date of Appealed Decision: source_date Variable name: source_date Type: Date in YYYY-MM-DD format Comments •This variable corresponds to the date of the appealed decision as indicated in the issue description (issue). •If multiple dates are indicated, the most recent date is coded. •It is coded in YYYY-MM-DD format. Examples •Example 1: Gegenstand Kehrichtabfuhr, Beschwerde gegen das Urteil vom 16. August 2016 des Verwaltungsgerichts des Kantons Graubünden, 5. Kammer (1C_517/2016, Judgment head). →source_date = 2016-08-16 •Example 2: Gegenstand Sich bestechen lassen (Art. 322quater StGB), Beschwerde gegen den Entscheid des Bundesstrafgerichts, Strafkammer, vom 30. November 2010. (6B_468/2011, Judgment head). →source_date = 2010-11-30 •Example 3: Objet validité de la poursuite (représentation de l’hoirie en cas d’urgence), recours contre l’arrêt de la Cour des poursuites et faillites du Tribunal cantonal du canton de Vaud du 16 août 2017 (FA17.001998–170529). (5A_643/2017, Judgment head). →source_date = 2017-08-16. 22 5.9 Origin of Appealed Decision: source_canton Variable name: source_canton Type: String (factor) source_canton n percent valid_percent ZH 21,329 16.7% 17.1% GE 13,612 10.7% 10.9% VD 13,449 10.6% 10.8% CH 10,663 8.4% 8.5% BE 8,968 7.0% 7.2% AG 7,579 5.9% 6.1% TI 5,679 4.5% 4.5% VS 4,826 3.8% 3.9% SG 4,674 3.7% 3.7% LU 4,370 3.4% 3.5% FR 3,870 3.0% 3.1% SO 3,635 2.9% 2.9% BS 3,502 2.7% 2.8% TG 3,141 2.5% 2.5% BL 2,617 2.1% 2.1% NA 2,441 1.9% - SZ 2,369 1.9% 1.9% NE 2,325 1.8% 1.9% ZG 2,248 1.8% 1.8% GR 1,987 1.6% 1.6% SH 919 0.7% 0.7% JU 817 0.6% 0.7% AR 648 0.5% 0.5% GL 562 0.4% 0.4% NW 464 0.4% 0.4% OW 351 0.3% 0.3% UR 322 0.3% 0.3% AI 110 0.1% 0.1% Comments •This variable corresponds to the origin of the appealed decision. •Appeals against cantonal decisions are coded with the two-letter abbreviation of the canton. •Appeals against Federal instances (such as the Federal Administrative Court or the Federal Criminal Court) are coded as CH. Examples •Example 1: Gegenstand Kehrichtabfuhr, Beschwerde gegen das Urteil vom 16. August 2016 des Verwaltungsgerichts des Kantons Graubünden, 5. Kammer (1C_517/2016, Judgment head). →source_canton = GR •Example 2: Gegenstand Sich bestechen lassen (Art. 322quater StGB), Beschwerde gegen den Entscheid des Bundesstrafgerichts, Strafkammer, vom 30. November 2010. (6B_468/2011, Judgment head). →source_canton = CH •Example 3: Objet validité de la poursuite (représentation de l’hoirie en cas d’urgence), recours contre l’arrêt de la Cour des poursuites et faillites du Tribunal cantonal du canton de Vaud du 16 août 2017 (FA17.001998–170529). (5A_643/2017, Judgment head). →source_canton = VD 23 5.10 Duration of Federal Supreme Court Proceedings: proc_duration Variable name: proc_duration Type: Integer Comments •This variable corresponds to the approximate duration of the Federal Supreme Court proceedings. •It is calculated as time difference in days between the Federal Supreme Court’s judgment date (date) and the date of the appealed decision (source_date). Examples •Example 1: Urteil vom 12. April 2017 [. . . ] Beschwerde gegen das Urteil vom 16. August 2016 des Verwaltungsgerichts des Kantons Graubünden, 5. Kammer (1C_517/2016, Judgment head). →proc_duration = 239 •Example 2: Urteil vom 24. Mai 2012 [. . . ] Beschwerde gegen den Entscheid des Bundesstrafgerichts, Strafkammer, vom 30. November 2010. (6B_468/2011, Judgment head). →proc_duration = 541 •Example 3: Arrêt du 3 mai 2018 [. . . ] recours contre l’arrêt de la Cour des poursuites et faillites du Tribunal cantonal du canton de Vaud du 16 août 2017 (FA17.001998–170529). (5A_643/2017, Judgment head). →proc_duration = 260 24 6 Party Variables 6.1 Appellant Class: app_class Variable name: app_class Type: String (factor) app_class n percent valid_percent natural 104,116 81.7% 84.1% legal 13,303 10.4% 10.8% state 6,320 5.0% 5.1% NA 3,738 2.9% - Comments •This variable corresponds to the appellant’s type as natural person, legal person, or state organ. •If multiple entities are present on the appellant’s side, the side will be classified as legal person if at least one legal person but no state organ is present, and as state organ if at least one state organ is present. Examples •Example 1: Verfahrensbeteiligte 1. A.________, 2. B.________, Beschwerdeführer, beide vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt Dr. iur. Gion-Andri Decurtins, gegen Gemeinde Cazis, Oberdorf, 7408 Cazis, vertreten durch Rechtsanwältin Nina Tinner. (1C_517/2016, Judgment head). →app_class = natural •Example 2: Verfahrensbeteiligte Schweizerische Bundesanwaltschaft, 3003 Bern, Beschwerdeführerin, gegen Y., vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt Cyrill Egli, Beschwerdegegner. (6B_468/2011, Judgment head). →app_class = state •Example 3: Participants à la procédure A., représenté par Me F., avocat, recourante, contre B., intimée, Office des poursuites du district de Lausanne, chemin du Trabandan 28, 1006 Lausanne. (5A_643/2017, Judgment head). →app_class = natural 25 8.2 Number of Cited Unpublished Federal Supreme Court Judgments: n_cited_bger Variable name: n_cited_bger Type: Integer Comments •This variable corresponds to how many unique unpublished Federal Supreme Court judgments are cited in the case. •It is based on the number of judgments coded in the cited_bger variable. •Judgments that are cited multiple times in one judgment (and thus also included multiple times in cited_bger) are only counted once in this variable (see Example 1). Examples •Example 1: 1C_517/2016;2C_1097/2014;2C_272/2012;2C_272/2012;2P.12/2001 (1C_517/2016). →n_cited_bger = 4 •Example 2: 6B_468/2011 (6B_468/2011). →n_cited_bger = 1 •Example 3: 5A_643/2017;5A_450/2013 (5A_643/2017). →n_cited_bger = 2 32 8.3 Cited Published Federal Supreme Court Judgments: cited_bge Variable name: cited_bge Type: String Comments •This variable corresponds to the case numbers of all published Federal Supreme Court judgments (BGE) that are cited in the case. •Multiple case numbers are separated by a semicolon (;) and no spaces. There can be multiple citations of the same judgment within one case (see Examples 1 and 3). •Judgment numbers were extracted with the regular expression \d{1,3} (I{1,3}[ab]?|IV|V) \d{1,4} and coded as indicated in the judgment. They have not been cleaned or standardized. Due to clerical errors in the judgment text, citations to judgments that do not exist may be present in the data. Examples •Example 1: Die Verletzung von Grundrechten (einschliesslich die willkürliche Anwendung von kantonalem Recht) prüft es dagegen nur insoweit, als eine solche Rüge in der Beschwerde vorgebracht und genügend begründet worden ist (Art. 106 Abs. 2 BGG; BGE 133 II 249 E. 1.4.2 S. 254 mit Hinweisen). (1C_517/2016, cons. 1). →cited_bge = 133 II 249;130 I 312;129 V 411;140 II 315;139 II 185;137 II 409;136 I 323;136 I 323;109 Ib 253;136 I 323;140 II 315;140 II 315;136 I 323;140 II 315;133 I 156;125 II 508;125 II 508 •Example 2: Dem Sachgericht steht im Bereich der Beweiswürdigung ein erheblicher Ermessensspielraum zu (BGE 120 Ia 31 E. 4b). Das Bundesgericht greift auf Beschwerde hin nur ein, wenn das Sachgericht diesen missbraucht, [. . . ] (BGE 132 III 209 E. 2.1; zum Begriff der Willkür BGE 137 I 1 E. 2.4 mit Hinweisen). Inwiefern das Gericht sein Ermessen im dargelegten Sinn missbraucht haben soll, ist in der Beschwerde klar und detailliert aufzuzeigen (BGE 130 I 258 E. 1.3). (6B_468/2011, cons. 1.4). →cited_bge = 120 Ia 31;132 III 209;137 I 1;130 I 258 •Example 3: Le recours a été déposé dans le délai légal (art. 100 al. 2 let. a LTF) à l’encontre d’une décision finale (art. 90 LTF; ATF 135 I 187 consid. 1.2 p. 189 et les références) rendue en matière de poursuite pour dettes [. . . ] (5A_643/2017, cons. 1.1). →cited_bge = 135 I 187;139 III 504;140 III 379;140 III 86;135 III 397;137 II 305;142 II 369;141 I 36;133 II 249;130 III 231;84 III 72;51 III 57;51 III 98;125 III 219;54 II 243;141 IV 380;125 III 219;109 II 400;109 II 400;101 II 36;125 III 219;125 III 219;125 III 219;58 II 195;58 II 195;58 II 195;58 II 195;74 II 215;58 II 195;58 II 195;133 III 675;119 II 339;58 II 195;102 III 1;140 III 175;104 III 4;58 II 195;58 II 195 33 8.4 Number of Cited Published Federal Supreme Court Judgments: n_cited_bge Variable name: n_cited_bge Type: Integer Comments •This variable corresponds to how many unique published Federal Supreme Court judgments (BGE) are cited in the case. •It is based on the number of judgments coded in the cited_bge variable. •Judgments that are cited multiple times in one judgment (and thus also included multiple times in cited_bge) are only counted once in this variable (see Examples 1 and 3). Examples •Example 1: 133 II 249;130 I 312;129 V 411;140 II 315;139 II 185;137 II 409;136 I 323;136 I 323;109 Ib 253;136 I 323;140 II 315;140 II 315;136 I 323;140 II 315;133 I 156;125 II 508;125 II 508 (1C_517/2016). →n_cited_bge = 10 •Example 2: 120 Ia 31;132 III 209;137 I 1;130 I 258 (6B_468/2011). →n_cited_bge = 4 •Example 3: 135 I 187;139 III 504;140 III 379;140 III 86;135 III 397;137 II 305;142 II 369;141 I 36;133 II 249;130 III 231;84 III 72;51 III 57;51 III 98;125 III 219;54 II 243;141 IV 380;125 III 219;109 II 400;109 II 400;101 II 36;125 III 219;125 III 219;125 III 219;58 II 195;58 II 195;58 II 195;58 II 195;74 II 215;58 II 195;58 II 195;133 III 675;119 II 339;58 II 195;102 III 1;140 III 175;104 III 4;58 II 195;58 II 195 (5A_643/2017). →n_cited_bge = 25 34 8.5 Publication as Leading Case: leading_case Variable name: leading_case Type: String Comments •This variable corresponds to whether the judgment was published in the official collection of Federal Supreme Court judgments (BGE). •If the judgment was not published, NA is coded. •If the judgment was published, the reference (BGE) of the published judgment is coded. •Note that judgments which have recently been designated to be published, but have not yet received a reference (BGE) are not identified in this variable. Examples •Example 1: 1C_517/2016. →leading_case = 143 I 336 •Example 2: 6B_468/2011. →leading_case = NA •Example 3: 5A_643/2017. →leading_case = 144 III 277 35 8.6 Version DOI: doi_version Variable name: doi_version Type: String Comments •This variable contains the DOI of the specific version of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset. •In the specific version of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset associated with this codebook (Version 2024-3), it is always coded 10.5281/zenodo.14867950. •Accessing this DOI always serves this specific version of the dataset. •The specific DOI should be used to cite the specific version of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset that was used as a supporting work, e.g. for an analysis or when quoting the work. This ensures that other researchers can access the exact version of the dataset for reproducibility. •Including the DOI in the dataset ensures that the origin of the data is documented in a machinereadable format even if the data is shared without context. This is laid out in Principle F1 of the FAIR Data Guidelines, which recommends that each measurement is assigned a persistent identifier. Examples •Example 1: 1C_517/2016. →doi_version = 10.5281/zenodo.14867950 •Example 2: 6B_468/2011. →doi_version = 10.5281/zenodo.14867950 •Example 3: 5A_643/2017. →doi_version = 10.5281/zenodo.14867950 36 9 Release Notes In the release notes, each change is labelled as MAJOR/MINOR/PATCH in the style of Semantic Versioning. MAJOR changes make incompatible API changes that may break existing functionality (e.g. adding, renaming or removing a variable; changing the order of variables; changing a variable type; adding, renaming or removing a factor level). MINOR changes add functionality in a backward compatible manner (e.g. adding new observations). PATCH changes make backward compatible bug fixes (e.g. fixing incorrect codings). Version and DOI Changes 2023-1 10.5281/zenodo.7793044 Initial release. 2023-2 10.5281/zenodo.7995984 - MAJOR: Adds merged_cases variable and sets outcomeand party-related variables to NA in complicated merged cases. - MAJOR: Uses new division names “3. Public” and “4. Public” in division for cases decided since 2023-01-01. - MINOR: Adds 1785 new judgments between 2023-01-01 and 2023-03-31 and completes earlier cases that were only recently published. - PATCH: Fixes an issue with outcome classification in Italian-language cases. - PATCH: Fixes an issue with detection of cited unpublished cases. 2023-3 10.5281/zenodo.8147595 - MINOR: Adds 1498 new judgments between 2023-04-01 and 2023-06-30 and completes earlier cases that were only recently published. 2023-4 10.5281/zenodo.10038641 - MAJOR: Uses new division names “1. Criminal” and “2. Criminal” in division for cases decided since 2023-07-01. - MAJOR: Changes factor levels in area_intermediate: Adds two levels (“Strafprozess”, “Zivilprozess”), renames two levels (“Öffentliches Verfahrensrecht”, “Energie, Verkehr, Medien und Kultur”), removes one level (“Kunst und Kultur”). - MINOR: Adds 1793 new judgments between 2023-07-01 and 2023-09-30 and completes earlier cases that were only recently published. - MINOR: Introduces supplementary .parquet file with judgment texts. - PATCH: Fixes an issue with source_date extraction in case where multiple dates are mentioned. - PATCH: Fixes an issue with the detection of judges in n_judges. 2023-5 10.5281/zenodo.10634296 - MINOR: Adds 1925 new judgments between 2023-10-01 and 2023-12-31 and completes earlier cases that were only recently published. - PATCH: Fixes an issue in outcome detection to reduce the number of NA. 37 Version and DOI Changes 2024-1 10.5281/zenodo.11092977 - MINOR: Adds 1806 new judgments between 2024-01-01 and 2024-03-31 and completes earlier cases that were only recently published. - PATCH: Fixes an issue with source_date and source_canton extraction. - PATCH: Fixes an issue with leading case identification in leading_case in a small number of cases decided since 2022. - PATCH: Fixes an issue with the detection of cited published Federal Supreme Court judgments. 2024-2 10.5281/zenodo.13353736 - MINOR: Adds 1915 new judgments between 2024-04-01 and 2024-06-30 and completes earlier cases that were only recently published. - PATCH: Fixes an issue with leading case identification in leading_case in 62 cases decided between 2011 and 2023. 2024-3 10.5281/zenodo.14867950 - MINOR: Adds 3388 new judgments between 2024-07-01 and 2024-12-31 and completes earlier cases that were only recently published. 38