Facts
In an intercantonal legal dispute, the government of the Canton of St. Gallen obtained a legal opinion from Prof. Dr. X., who is a professor at the University of St. Gallen. In the course of the negotiations to settle the conflict, the leading department of the Canton of St. Gallen continued to consult Prof. Dr. X. in an advisory capacity. In March 2005, he submitted an additional expert opinion to the department. Even before this additional expert opinion had been commissioned, an assistant of Prof. Dr. X. acting on his behalf made an inquiry to a body dealing with issues that were also relevant in the additional expert opinion.
On May 2, 2005, the St. Gallen Cantonal Government sent a letter to the federal authority that had received the notification about the assistant's inquiry, in which it described the behavior of Prof. Dr. X. or his assistant as unacceptable and distanced itself from it. At the same time, it informed that it had threatened Prof. Dr. X. with legal action in the event of a repeat offense.
On February 20, 2006, Prof. Dr. X. filed a request for the Cantonal Government to formally establish that the letters of May 2 and 3, 2005 had been unlawful in various respects. In particular, he claimed that the Cantonal Government's letter of May 2, 2005 had violated his personality rights.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the partial non-entry decision of the Administrative Court on the public law complaint of the appellant was unjustified. The Administrative Court had wrongly referred the appellant to the civil court regarding the question of a violation of his good reputation as an expert.
The Federal Supreme Court…