Facts

The marriage of the appellant ([A.A.] ) and the respondent ([C.] ) was dissolved by judgment of the Arbon District Court of 6 September 2018.

The appellant filed an appeal in matrimonial property matters against the decision of the Higher Court of the Canton of Thurgau of 25 April 2019 (ZBR.2018.45), which the Higher Court dismissed as unfounded.

The appellant's father filed an appeal in civil matters against this decision with the Federal Supreme Court on 22 July 2019 and requested legal aid. On 30 July 2019 he filed a supplementary submission, by which he submitted a criminal complaint and a supervisory complaint to the Grand Council against the judges and the court clerk of the lower court.

Subject matter of the dispute: Divorce, in particular the matrimonial property settlement (dissolution of co-ownership of a property in [U.] , public auction, distribution of the proceeds, return of items, cost arrangements).

Procedural peculiarities:

  • The appeal was drafted and signed by the appellant's father, who is not a lawyer.
  • The father complained of the lengthy involvement of the deputy president of the Higher Court in numerous proceedings, but did not assert any breach of recusal rules.
  • The appeal contained no valid substantive petitions, only a request for remand or non-entry and indefinite claims.

Considerations

Representation by a non-lawyer: Pursuant to Art. 40 para. 1 FSCA, parties in civil matters before the Federal Supreme Court may only be represented by lawyers admitted under FMLA. The submission originates from the father, who is evidently not a lawyer and is therefore not authorised to represent. Remand for correction (for example by the appellant personally signing) is unnecessary, however, because the appeal is in any event inadmissible for other reasons.

Recusal: Since no violation of recusal provisions is asserted, but merely a lengthy involvement of the deputy president and implicit allegations of judicial arbitrariness are raised, the question of possible bias need not be examined further.

Lack of petitions: Pursuant to Art. 42 para. 1 FSCA, an appeal must contain specific petitions. Since an appeal in civil matters is reformatory (Art. 107 para. 2 FSCA), mere annulment of the contested decision is insufficient; rather, a substantive petition must be made and, in the case of monetary claims, precisely quantified. The requests for remand or non-entry are inadequate, as are the implicit requests for unwinding of the co-ownership, return of the items and auction, since they either do not constitute valid petitions or merely challenge the decision in an appellatory manner.

Insufficient reasoning and complaint regarding the facts: Pursuant to Art. 42 para. 2 FSCA, the appeal must set out in concise form how the contested decision violates the law, which requires engagement with its reasoning. Pursuant to Art. 105 para. 1 FSCA, the Federal Supreme Court bases its decision on the facts established by the lower court; only a manifestly incorrect or arbitrary establishment of facts (Art. 9 Cst.) may be challenged, whereby the strict principle of complaint applies (Art. 97 para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA). The appeal's submissions are barely…