15. Februar 2021 – In this judgment, the Federal Supreme Court had to decide on an already issued federal court judgment concerning a final withdrawal of the license to practice as a self-employed doctor. The plaintiff filed an application for revision of the judgment and submitted various formal and substantive arguments. Namely he argued that the evidence presented, the statute of limitations as well as the procedural error at the lower court were not taken into account. In addition, three federal judges were involved in the ruling who had already adjudicated a substantively identical case, thus deciding on an application for revision of a ruling they had issued. The judges concerned were "judge and party" at the same time. The court did not follow these arguments and rejected the request. Namely, the court argued hat the plaintiff had not correctly indicated the legal grounds for review on which he relied. Moreover, no concrete arguments for an infringement had been brought forth. The participation of the judges concerned in previous proceedings does not in itself constitute grounds for their disqualification in an upcoming case.

For the full decision, see here.