Facts
In this case, it concerned a civil law complaint in which the complainant A. took action against B. The lower court had not entered into the complainant's allegation that her right to be judged by a lawful court pursuant to Art. 30 para. 1 of the Federal Constitution had been violated, since only the president of the five judges present at the main hearing had been involved in the judgment.
The lower court justified its decision not to enter into the matter by stating that the complainant had not substantiated how the change in the composition of the court was unjustified. The complainant had herself admitted that a change in the composition of the court could be permissible in individual cases.
Considerations
However, the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the lower court should have examined the complainant's right to a lawfully constituted court pursuant to Art. 30 para. 1 of the Federal Constitution. It had been the court's responsibility to inform the parties of the intended replacement of the judges and the reasons for it. Only then would the complainant have had to substantively dispute the objectivity of the reasons.
Since the District Court had neither informed the parties about the intended change in the composition of the court nor stated the reasons for it, the complainant could not fulfill her obligation to demonstrate the unjustification of the change. The lower court's…