Facts
The Federal Court had to decide on a request for revision by [W.] , who appealed against the rejection of his administrative complaint by the Federal Insurance Court. [W.] had claimed a pension of 100% and a compensation for loss of integrity from the military insurance, which had been rejected. The Federal Insurance Court had based its decision on a report by MEDAS dated April 5, 2004, which had not been based on a comprehensive medical examination.
[W.] applied for revision of the judgment of November 9, 2006, and claimed that the court had relied on an insufficient report and that the military insurance had forced the experts to conduct a medical examination through coercion and abuse of authority.
Considerations
The Federal Court first examined whether the request for revision was admissible. It found that the request had been filed after the entry into force of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA) and that the procedural rules of the FSCA were therefore applicable.
The court pointed out that decisions of the Federal Court are generally final and can only be revised under certain circumstances. It examined whether the grounds for revision claimed by the applicant were present, in particular whether the MEDAS report was insufficient or whether the military insurance had forced the experts to conduct a medical examination through coercion and abuse of authority.
However,…