Facts
Parties:
- Appellants: [B.] , [C.] , [D.] (represented by attorney Tim Walker)
- Respondent: [A.] (represented by attorney Dr. Werner Ritter)
- Child and Adult Protection Authority (CAPA) Appenzell Ausserrhoden
Facts:
- The CAPA Appenzell Ausserrhoden established a guardianship over [E.] on October 31, 2013, and deprived her of legal capacity for asset management.
- On October 13, 2015, [E.] applied for the division of her agricultural property and sold parts of it to [A.] .
- The CAPA granted consent to these transactions on December 31, 2015.
- Appellants filed an appeal against this decision on February 19, 2016.
- [E.] died on March 6, 2016.
- The Higher Court upheld the appeal on September 6, 2016, and overturned the decision of the CAPA.
- [A.] filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, which upheld the appeal and remitted the case for a new decision.
- The Higher Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants by decision of October 23, 2018, as they had missed the appeal deadline.
- Appellants addressed the Federal Supreme Court with a submission dated February 22, 2019, and requested the annulment of the decision of the Higher Court dated October 23, 2018.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court first examines the admissibility of the appeal. It establishes that this is a final decision of a cantonal supreme court, which concerns a matter of public law and is directly related to civil law. The appellants have a protected interest and the appeal is generally given.
With regard to the grounds for the appeal, the Federal Supreme Court notes that the appellants merely request the annulment of the challenged decision. Since the Higher Court did not enter into the appeal, the Federal Supreme Court cannot decide on the matter itself in the event that the appeal is well-founded. Therefore, the purely cassatory legal request is to be considered admissible.
The Federal Supreme Court applies the law ex officio and examines with free cognition whether the challenged decision violates the law. It…