Facts
Parties and procedural history:
The plaintiff (petitioner) filed a claim with the Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich on 21 December 2024. The Commercial Court set a deadline for payment of an advance on court costs, rejected his application for free legal aid with a ruling dated 11 April 2025, and dismissed his appeal against this with judgment 4A_236/2025 dated 6 June 2025. A reconsideration request by the plaintiff was also dismissed on 27 June 2025, whereupon the Commercial Court did not allow the claim to proceed as the advance on costs had not been paid.
The plaintiff lodged an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court on 24 August 2025, which was not allowed to proceed with judgment 4A_399/2025 dated 11 September 2025. At the same time, his application for free legal aid and representation in the federal court proceedings was rejected. The Federal Supreme Court imposed court costs of CHF 500.-- on him and did not award any party compensation.
On 14 October 2025, the petitioner filed a petition for revision with the Federal Supreme Court. He requested the setting aside of judgment 4A_399/2025 dated 11 September 2025, substantive consideration of his appeal, correction of the cost rulings in his favour, compensation of CHF 84,594.--, and free legal aid for the revision proceedings. The President of the First Civil Division rejected the application for suspensive effect with an order dated 16 October 2025.
Considerations
Revision requirements and burden of justification: Revision of a decision of the Federal Supreme Court is only permissible for the reasons exhaustively listed in Arts. 121–123 FSCA. The petition for revision must contain the requests and their justification, including specification of the evidence (Art. 42 para. 1 FSCA). A merely general allegation of procedural violations is insufficient; rather, it must be demonstrated why a revision ground exists and how the operative part of the judgment should be amended. In the present case, the petitioner has not substantiated any of the revision grounds listed in Arts. 121–123 FSCA to the required extent.
Examination of the revision grounds asserted: The petitioner based his petition for revision on Art. 121 lit. a and c, Art. 122 and Art. 123 para. 2 FSCA. With regard to Art. 121 lit. a FSCA (violation of provisions on formation of the adjudicating body or recusal) and lit. c FSCA (unadjudicated applications), he was unable to show any specific violations or overlooked applications. Instead, he confined himself to general accusations that are not relevant under revision law. Art. 122 FSCA (violation of the ECHR) fails because the petitioner did not refer the judgment to the ECtHR, so that there is no final judgment of that court. Art. 123 para. 2 FSCA (subsequently discovered significant facts or evidence) was not demonstrated, as the petitioner did not present any new, false novae…