Facts
This case concerns the exclusion of a member from the Veterinary Society of Z. by the extraordinary general assembly of the association on 13 November 1958. The excluded member filed a lawsuit to have this exclusion decision annulled. The main factual elements are as follows: - The excluded member did not attend the extraordinary general assembly on 13 November 1958 where the decision of his exclusion was made. - He learned on 14 November that his exclusion had been decided the day before, but the reasons were only communicated to him on 22 November. - He filed his lawsuit on the following 22 December. - The reasons given for his exclusion were: repeated and often malicious interventions with the cantonal authorities in an attempt to have himself appointed as head of the veterinary laboratory against the will of his hierarchical superior, the cantonal veterinarian; the fact that he was the voluntary or involuntary instigator of the decision taken by the Cantonal Council to close the cantonal veterinary laboratory; and the disclosure of statements made during the internal discussions of the society, in order to harm the veterinary corps of the canton.Considerations
1. The Federal Tribunal considered that the one-month deadline for filing a lawsuit against the exclusion decision, provided for in Art. 75 CC, runs from the moment the excluded member became aware of the decision in its entirety, including the reasons given, and not just the decision itself. Thus, the action filed on 22 December was not late.
2. Regarding the right to be heard, the Federal Tribunal considered that although the summons of 8 November 1958 to explain himself before the committee did not leave sufficient time, the excluded member nevertheless had sufficient time to prepare after receiving the summons to the general assembly of 13 November. Furthermore, he could not be unaware of the grievances articulated against him at the general assembly of 23 October 1958, which he had attended. Therefore, the exclusion decision was not vitiated by a violation of the right to be heard.
3. Regarding the ground for exclusion provided for in the articles of association, the Federal Tribunal considered that…