constitutional complaint 
in case third August 2010 will not be processed on the constitutional complaint of teachers H.. In order to prove the origin of federal judges, Niquille, Maillard and registrars lance that connect federal judge human rights violated. Authorities, which not adhere to the Federal Constitution are enemies of the constitution. Who violates human rights, must put up with the accusation, can operate organized crime. CAREFULLY put the constitutional complaint clearly shows that the decision of the Federal Court is completely arbitrary. It is hoped that teacher is, the verdict at the European Court of Human Rights moves on.
Subsidiary constitutional complaint
first At the express request of the complainant is in the other - in the event that the amount in dispute is not reached for a complaint in matters of public law, contrary to expectations the principal types - subsidiary Constitutional complaint filed. According to Article 118 of BGG is the Federal Constitutional Court in the assessment of complaints to the facts found by the lower court committed in principle. Means of appeal should also be set out in summary form, how the contested decision violates law. As part of the constitutional complaint the judge applies the law does not ex officio, so to complain accordingly is why the decision appealed against constitutional rights violated. The complaint in this sense, what follows, with the complainant allowed to refer to some remarks on priority, to avoid repetitions langfädige:
1.1 Personal Freedom (Article 10 paragraph 2 BV)
a referral to seek psychiatric survey constitutes an encroachment on the fundamental right of personal liberty dar. Such intervention must be proportionate among others. was not met Based on the fact that the original reason for the initiated measures, namely an alleged threat is proven, the related payment is not proportionate (See B I./1.1 prior to 1.4).
1.2 Willkürverbot / good faith (Article 9 BV)
with the untenable assertion of the appointing authority Gaby Jenö of 07/06/2006, which is massively recurrent self-and foreign-hazardous, is the personality The complainant has been massively violated. The false accusation of the appointing authority on 11.8.2009, which assumes that the recurrent threats to have been made and compared with the gunman Tschanun Gunther is clearly a false and hidden game that good faith blatant contradiction to appear. The appointing authority shall indicate in the note of 14/03/2007 to himself that the recurrent has never threatened her. Accordingly, the appointing authority with their unlawful criminal complaint for alleged threat, which led to the disastrous use of the special barracuda, violates the privacy rights of the recurrent massive intentional. This behavior is contrary to the principle of acting in good faith in accordance with Article 9 BV (See I. B / 1.1voarb). Objectively
untenable and therefore the decision is arbitrary in that it is stated that the instruction to seek psychiatric assess, not to adopt in available form. This is because action is taken by the core area of individual rights which the complainant with an original in this regard must be entitled to review possibility. This is especially true because of less and adopt far-reaching instruction according to § 24 para 2 PG available in the form (see B I./1.2 advance).
the contested decision is arbitrary and more in that jurisdiction may be derogated provided a further medical examination by the District physician appointing authority, after the Canton doctor already performs the basic analysis (see B I./1.3. advance)
is factually untenable and arbitrary the decision in so far recorded as is the applicant's conduct in 2007 and 2008 makes it more appropriate to have him examine psychiatric. The behavior is unique to this time - not the complainant's self-generated - pressure situation by the appointing authority to declare, in this regard is the principle of good faith and violated the same applies for the claim that the (See B I./1.5 and 1.6 previously).
is factually untenable and arbitrary on the conclusion that the continuation of the employment relationship is the appointing authority, therefore, not reasonable because the complainant had a critical in its BLOGS lost external and confidence in the appointing authority obvious (See point B/1.7 advance)
untenable Objectively, finally, the reason given by the - by the judgment 17 - Approval December 2007 was the complainant the statutory probation was first recognized. The same applies to the claim that the exemption was expressly on the condition of an assessment been provided, which is why the complainant could not take the position that he had been relieved of all duties and obligations, and thus of an assessment. Both can not be cited by the lower court in the land records, namely the ruling of 17 December 2007 and the undated exemption available to be seen. (See point. BI/1.9 and 1.10)
1.3 Legal hearing (Art. 29 BV)
The lower court has been involved in any way with the complainant's themed and set out bullying situation, which is a violation of due process and human dignity and thus a violation of Article 7 and 29 paragraph 2 BV represents. The complainant has the right to have one is dealing with his arguments. Also under this aspect has to be approval of the Board (see B I./1.1. Advance)
Further, the right to be heard by injured when the applicant is given no opportunity to the person of the assessor and the review topic to comment, even though the lower court recognizes that the transfer is to a psychiatric evaluation a serious violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty (See B I./1.4. advance)
