Facts
The case concerns a shareholder who participates as an intervenor in an organizational defect procedure against a public limited company. The District Court ordered the auction of the company's shares and its liquidation, which also directly affected the appellant as a shareholder. The Cantonal Court did not enter into the appellant's appeal against this decision, as it was of the opinion that the appellant as an intervenor could not file a legal remedy against the will of the main party (the company).
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court held that in cases where the judgment between the main parties also has direct legal effects on the intervenor which cannot be eliminated or mitigated under Art. 77 CPC, the intervenor takes the position of a co-litigant intervenor. This means that he can take procedural actions independently of the actions of the main party and, in particular, can also file legal remedies.
The Federal Supreme Court justified this by stating that otherwise the intervenor's right to be heard under Art. 29…