Facts
The appellant [X.] had filed a lawsuit against Dr. med. [Y.] with the Cantonal Court of Glarus on February 2, 2012, and simultaneously applied for precautionary measures. The Cantonal Court declared the appellant unfit to be a party to the proceedings on November 20, 2012, for the pending proceedings as well as for all pending and future proceedings related to rent, personality rights, and claims for damages and satisfaction. The proceedings were suspended. The appellant lodged a complaint against this decision and requested the annulment of the judgment of the Higher Court of the Canton of Glarus.
The Federal Court partially upheld the complaint and annulled the judgment of the Higher Court of the Canton of Glarus insofar as it declared the appellant unfit to be a party to further proceedings other than the proceedings ZG.2012.00159 and ZG.2012.00160. The proceedings ZG.2012.00159 and ZG.2012.00160 remain suspended until the adult protection authority has expressed its opinion on their continuation, but for a maximum of three months from the entry into force of this judgment.
Considerations
The Federal Court found that the complaint in civil matters is inadmissible because the amount in dispute of 30,000 francs is not reached. However, the complaint is to be considered as a subsidiary constitutional complaint. The Federal Court examined whether the lower court rightly denied the appellant's capacity to be a party to the proceedings and whether the proceedings were rightly suspended.
The Federal Court found that the lower court misjudged the principles of capacity to be a party to the proceedings. Capacity to be a party to the proceedings is a procedural requirement and must be examined ex officio. The law is silent on whether and under what conditions the court must obtain a medical expert opinion to assess capacity to be a party to the proceedings. However, the Federal Court found that the lower court rightly…