Facts
The case concerns a dispute between Professor X. and the government of the canton of Saint-Gall. The government had requested a legal opinion from Professor X. in the context of an intercantonal conflict. During the negotiations, an assistant to Professor X. asked a question to an instance, which led the government to consider that Professor X. had acted in an unacceptable manner. The government then sent a letter to the stakeholders, in which it expressed its dissatisfaction and threatened Professor X. with taking legal action.
Professor X. filed a request with the government for it to recognize that its letters were contrary to the law. The government rejected this request and invited Professor X. to appeal to the cantonal administrative court. The administrative court dismissed Professor X.'s complaint, considering that certain questions were of a private nature and fell within the jurisdiction of the civil judge.
Professor X. then appealed to the Federal Court, which admitted his appeal and referred the case back to the administrative court for further consideration.
Considerations
The Federal Court considered that the administrative court had wrongly referred Professor X. to the civil judge for certain questions, as these were in fact of a public nature. The Federal Court recalled that personality rights are protected by the Constitution and the ECHR, and that the right to a public hearing is a fundamental right.
The Federal Court also considered that the administrative court had wrongly refused to hold a public hearing, as Professor X. had a legitimate interest in his case being treated in a public…