Facts
Businessman [A.] had been under guardianship since August 10, 1972, pursuant to Art. 395 paras. 1 and 2 of the Swiss Civil Code (ZGB). This was based on a psychiatric expert opinion and a supplementary report prepared in connection with the divorce proceedings of the [A.] spouses. On January 29, 1975, [A.] filed a request for revocation of the guardianship measure, which was, however, rejected by the District Council on February 12, 1976. The cantonal Department of Justice confirmed this decision by order dated November 22, 1976.
[A.] appealed against this order, both by way of appeal and by way of a constitutional complaint. The latter was dismissed on February 28, 1977, to the extent that it had been possible to enter into it.
Considerations
The Federal Court states that any guardianship measure must be revoked as soon as the reason for its imposition has ceased to exist. If it had been established due to mental illness or mental deficiency, a psychiatric expert opinion must have determined that the reason for it no longer exists.
In the present case, the imposition of the guardianship was based on a physical disability (partial destruction of brain substance) diagnosed by the medical experts, which they practically equated in its effects with a mental illness. The District Council ordered a combined guardianship, as it was of the opinion that there was no such comprehensive need for protection as required for a full guardianship.
In assessing the request for revocation, the Department of Justice relied on an expert opinion and a supplementary report from the Psychiatric Outpatient Clinic, which found that [A.] continued to suffer from the consequences of a cerebrovascular disease, but that a calming of his mental condition had occurred. However, the expert considers it necessary to continue to keep [A.] away from any influence on the fortunes of C. AG, as, given his limited ability to…