Facts
D.A. had been working at E. AG and its legal successors (now: C. AG) since the beginning of his apprenticeship in 1962. In 2004, he was diagnosed with a malignant pleural mesothelioma (chest cancer), which led to his death on November 10, 2005. After his death, his daughters A.A. and B.A. joined the proceedings and filed a partial claim with the Labor Court of Baden to receive compensation and satisfaction in the amount of CHF 212,906. However, the Labor Court, the High Court of the Canton of Aargau, and the Federal Court dismissed the claim, as they considered the claims to be time-barred.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In its judgment of March 11, 2014, the ECtHR found a violation of the right of access to a court under Article 6(1) of the ECHR. However, the ECtHR rejected the plaintiffs' claim for compensation of CHF 200,579 plus interest due to a lack of causality.
With a request for revision dated June 30, 2014, the plaintiffs requested the Federal Court to set aside the judgment 4A_249/2010 of November 16, 2010 and to order C. AG to pay CHF 212,906 plus interest.
Considerations
The Federal Court has admitted the revision. It justifies this as follows
According to Article 122(a) of the Federal Supreme Court Act (BGG), a revision first requires that the ECtHR has found a violation of the ECHR in a final judgment. This is the case here, as the ECtHR found a violation of Article 6(1) of the ECHR in the judgment of March 11, 2014.
A revision due to a violation of the ECHR further requires, according to Article 122(b) BGG, that compensation is not suitable to remedy the consequences of the violation. The ECtHR rejected the plaintiffs' request for an award of compensation of CHF 200,579 plus interest due to a lack of causality. The Federal Court considers this constellation not to be expressly regulated by the legislator, but interprets Article 122(b) BGG in such a way that a revision is admissible in such cases, as…