Facts
X., a Serbian national born in 1950, first entered Switzerland in 1983 and has been residing there essentially without interruption since 1989. He is married for the third time to a Croatian woman and has a son born in 2005 with her. Between 1987 and 2003, X. was convicted in criminal proceedings a total of six times, most significantly for negligent homicide in 1991. Since the end of June 2001, X. has never been employed again and has been receiving a disability pension since 2004. In August 2006, the Migration Office of the Canton of Lucerne rejected X.'s application for a settlement permit and refused to extend his residence permit. X. challenged this decision with a subsidiary constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, alleging a violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court does not enter into the appeal. According to the case law on Art. 88 of the former Federal Statute on the Administration of Federal Justice, which the legislator referred to in the formulation of Art. 115 let. b of the Federal Supreme Court Act, the prohibition of arbitrariness alone cannot establish a protected legal position. The appellant has no legal entitlement to the extension of his residence permit, which is why he is not legitimized to allege a violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness.
However, even with a restrictive interpretation of Art. 115 let. b of the Federal Supreme Court Act, other constitutional rights, such as procedural guarantees or the prohibition of discrimination, can be…