Facts
The plaintiff [A.] , acting through [A.] Consulting, filed a claim for damages and satisfaction with the Federal Government due to unlawful actions of the Federal Supreme Court. The plaintiff felt that his personality was violated by passages in two legally binding Federal Supreme Court judgments, in which his behaviour was described as vexatious, abusive of legal rights and malicious. He also criticized the publication of the judgments on the internet. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the claim, as there was no breach of official duty by the involved Federal Judges. The assessment of the plaintiff's behaviour in the judgments was justified in the procedural context, and the publication of the judgments was carried out in compliance with the applicable anonymization rules.Considerations
According to the Federal Supreme Court, the legality of legally binding judgments cannot be reviewed in liability proceedings. Liability of the Federal Government is only possible in case of a qualified misconduct of the judges, i.e. a violation of an essential duty for the exercise of their function. This was not the case here.
The description of the plaintiff's…