Facts
The complainant [X.] was active as a sales intermediary for [A.] Ltd. and [B. GmbH] . On August 25, 2003, [X.] and other individuals filed a criminal complaint against [Z.] , whom they suspected of embezzling client funds on a large scale. On September 2, 2003, [X.] was interviewed as an informant. On August 27, 2004, the Zurich District Attorney's Office issued a presentation order against [X.] , who was also suspected of embezzlement. The Zurich Cantonal Police executed this presentation order on September 2, 2004, at [X.] 's workplace.
In connection with the arrest of September 2, 2004, [X.] asserted claims against the Government Council of the Canton of Zurich on September 14, 2004, as he saw his personality rights violated. On December 10, 2004, the Finance Directorate of the Canton of Zurich rejected the claims asserted by [X.] .
[X.] filed a lawsuit against the Canton of Zurich with the Zurich District Court on December 17, 2004, with the legal petition that it be established that the Canton of Zurich had violated his personality rights through the arrest and the circumstances thereof. After the District Court and the Higher Court had refused the lawsuit in a first round and the Court of Cassation had referred the matter back for material consideration, the Zurich District Court dismissed [X.] 's lawsuit with judgment of October 8, 2009.
The Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed [X.] 's lawsuit with judgment of February 4, 2011, insofar as it was considered. [X.] filed a complaint in civil matters with the Federal Court and requested that the judgment of the Higher Court be set aside, that the complaint on the establishment of an unlawful violation of personality rights be considered, and that the complaint be granted and it be established that the Canton of Zurich had violated his personality rights through the arrest and the circumstances thereof.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the admissibility of the complaint and came to the conclusion that the complaint in public law matters was admissible, as it concerned a claim from public law liability. The incorrect designation of the remedy does not cause any harm.
The Federal Court reviewed the correct application of federal law and international law and found that the lower court had dismissed the lawsuit, insofar as it had considered it. The complainant alleged a violation of Art. 29a Cst. and Art. 13 ECHR, in that the lower court had denied the interest in establishing the facts and therefore had not considered the lawsuit.
The Federal Court came to the…