Facts
The appellant, [X.] , was the sister of [S.] , who died in 1986 and left her sons [Y.] and [Z.] as statutory heirs. The grandmother of the respondents disinherited them in 1999 due to serious violation of family law obligations. The respondents challenged the disinheritance in court. The District Court declared the disinheritance invalid and determined the respondents' shares of the estate. The appellant appealed against the judgment and argued that the presiding District Court President had been replaced during the proceedings. The High Court rejected the objection and confirmed the District Court's judgment.
The appellant now requests the Federal Court to set aside the High Court's judgment and refer the case back to the District Court for consideration. She argues that the replacement of the Court President during the proceedings violated her rights.
Considerations
The Federal Court examines whether the replacement of the Court President during the proceedings violated the guarantee of a constitutional judge (Art. 30 para. 1 Cst.) or the right to a fair hearing (Art. 29 para. 2 Cst.). It finds that the replacement of the Court President was due to her maternity leave and that the President's deputy was able to acquire the same knowledge of the case files and protocol as the other members of the collegiate court.
The Federal Court refers to the case law according to which participation in the taking of evidence and in the parties' statements as well as the personal impression gained from the parties can be important for a court member when it comes to the evaluation and assessment of so-called internal facts. However, it finds that in the present case, eight months had passed between the main hearing and the deliberation and pronouncement of the judgment, and that the personal impressions of the court…