Facts
On July 1, 1994, X. and [Y.], teachers in a secondary school cycle without a university degree, requested the State Council of the Canton of Valais to formally decide, in a decision subject to appeal, that the salary difference between teachers with a university degree and those without violated the principle of equal treatment. The State Council refused to make this decision, considering that the competence to set the salaries of teachers in the secondary school cycle lay with the cantonal legislature.
X. and [Y.] appealed this decision to the Public Law Court of the Cantonal Tribunal of the Canton of Valais. The Court dismissed their main appeal requesting the case be remanded to the State Council and considered their subsidiary conclusions as inadmissible. It transferred the case to the Department of Public Instruction as a matter within its jurisdiction and did not impose court costs or award costs to the appellants.
X. and [Y.] then appealed to the Federal Tribunal for a violation of Art. 4 of the Federal Constitution, alleging a violation of the prohibition of formal and substantive denial of justice.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal declared the appeal inadmissible. It considered that the contested judgment was an incidental decision, both in its main pronouncement referring the case to the Department of Public Instruction and in its accessory pronouncement on costs and expenses.
According to the case law, an incidental decision only causes irreparable harm to the interested party when it causes them a legal prejudice that a favorable decision on the merits would not completely eliminate. In this case, the appellants…