Facts
The appellant [A.] had filed a claim against [B.B.] and [C.B.] with the District Court of Rorschach, aiming to obligate them jointly and severally to pay CHF 17,640.20 plus interest. The District Court rejected the application for free legal aid, as the main action appeared to be without prospects of success. The appeal to the Cantonal Court of St. Gallen remained unsuccessful. The appellant then requested the Federal Court to overturn the decision of the Cantonal Court and grant him free legal aid.
The parties were in dispute over whether a rental relationship existed between the appellant and [B.B.] or [C.B.] . The appellant relied on a rental agreement of October 21/27, 1995, with [B.B.] , while the defendants submitted an analogous rental agreement with [C.B.] as the tenant.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the admissibility of the appeal and came to the conclusion that the lower court had rightly qualified the action as without prospects of success. The lower court had established that the appellant had not consistently explained how and why two identical rental agreements had come about.
The Federal Court rejected the complaint of violation of the right to be heard and the principle of fairness, as the lower court had presented its considerations in detail and the appellant had not sufficiently substantiated why the action was sufficiently…