Facts

The appellant A.A. (born 1937) was subject to a representation curatorship with asset management pursuant to Art. 394 in conjunction with Art. 395 CC, which the Child and Adult Protection Authority of the City of Zurich (KESB) established on 7 July 2015 at her own request. C. was appointed as curator at the request of the applicant, being entrusted in particular with ensuring a suitable housing situation, the health and social welfare of the person under curatorship, and the careful management of income and assets.

The sister of the person under curatorship, the respondent B.A., on 21 March 2017 applied to the KESB for the immediate dismissal of the curator, alternatively the appointment of an additional professional curator with exclusive asset management, and for the curator to be required to render accounts. By decision of 12 December 2017, the KESB declined to consider the applications for lack of standing to appeal, found that there were no grounds for removing the curator, and imposed the decision fees on B.A.

The appeal lodged against this decision was dismissed by the District Council of Zurich by judgment of 23 August 2018, insofar as it was admissible. Upon appeal by B.A., the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich, II. Civil Chamber, by judgment of 29 March 2019, set aside the District Council's judgment and remitted the matter to the District Council for a decision on the merits. Contrary to the KESB, it affirmed B.A.'s standing to appeal and, on the same day, granted her application for access to the complete files of the KESB, while noting that the right of access to files is not absolute and that a balancing of interests was to be carried out if appropriate.

The appellant A.A. lodged an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court on 29 April 2019, requesting the annulment of the Higher Court's judgment and decision and confirmation of the District Council's judgment. The Federal Supreme Court obtained the cantonal files but did not request any responses.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examines the admissibility of the appeal of its own motion and with free review. The appellant has standing to appeal and the appeal was lodged within time. The appealed decision is a separately notified interlocutory decision in an adult protection matter, which is a public-law decision without monetary value in direct connection with civil law and is therefore subject to the civil appeal under Art. 72 para. 2 let. b no. 6 FSCA.

The separate challenge of interlocutory decisions under Art. 93 para. 1 FSCA is an exception and is applied restrictively. It requires that an irreparable harm of a legal nature is threatened (let. a), or that upholding the appeal would immediately result in a final decision and save considerable time or costs (let. b). Purely factual disadvantages such as prolongation or increased cost of…