Facts
{ "title": \"Dismissal of the appeal against a decision not to enter into proceedings in a visa matter", \"facts": \"The Russian national [A.] (born 1985) applied on 17 February 2023 at the Swiss representation in Moscow for a Schengen visa for a 90-day stay for the purpose of attending a language course. The visa was refused by means of a formal decision. [A.] filed an appeal against this decision, which was dismissed by the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) on 24 March 2023. The Federal Administrative Court, Division VI, dismissed the subsequent complaint with a judgment dated 16 May 2024. [A.] filed an appeal against this judgment with the Federal Supreme Court (2C_316/2024) on 21 June 2024, which the Federal Supreme Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. By letter dated 11 September 2024, [A.] applied for revision of this decision not to enter into proceedings and requested free legal aid as well as service of the judgment via the Federal Gazette, stating that he no longer had a delivery address in Switzerland as of that date.
", \"reasoning": \"The Federal Supreme Court first examined the admissibility of the application for revision. Pursuant to Art. 61 FSCA, judgments of the Federal Supreme Court become final on the day they are rendered, and a renewed review is generally excluded. A revision is only possible under the grounds for revision exhaustively listed in Art. 121 et seq. FSCA. The applicant invoked Art. 123 para. 2 lit. a FSCA, according to which a revision is possible if significant new facts or decisive evidence are discovered after the fact that could not be presented in the earlier proceedings. However, the Court clarified that legal aspects, such as an incorrect legal assessment or new case law, do not constitute valid grounds for revision.
The applicant based his application for revision on the Agreement of 2 September 1993 between Switzerland and Russia on the exchange of trainees, which he claimed granted him a right of entry for study purposes. The Federal Supreme Court, however, pointed out that this agreement does not constitute a new fact within the meaning of Art. 123 para. 2 lit. a FSCA and therefore does not constitute a ground for revision. Moreover, the agreement does not change the admissibility of the original complaint, as this concerned entry into Switzerland outside a permit procedure and the applicant did not fall within the scope of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons (AFMP). The complaint in public law matters was therefore inadmissible.
The Federal Supreme Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any grounds for revision relevant to the decision not to enter into proceedings 2C_316/2024. The application for revision therefore lacked a sufficient legal basis pursuant to Art. 42 para. 2 in conjunction with Art. 121 et seq. FSCA. Accordingly, the manifestly unfounded application for revision was dismissed without further procedural measures.
Since, according to the applicant’s own statement, he no longer had a delivery address in Switzerland, the judgment was served as requested by publication of the operative part in the Federal Gazette. No court fees were charged, and no party compensation was owed.
In its final decision, the Federal Supreme Court dismissed the application for…