The bullying case H. teacher is unique in Switzerland. He proves to the smallest detail, as officials and authorities shy away from any meanness to a dedicated and popular teacher with all the means to destroy his professional career intent. Even the human rights by both the District Court and the Federal Court systematically violated massively
Article 3 ECHR
Based on Article 3 ECHR, no one to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment are subjected to punishment. Object of protection, both the physical as well as the psychological integrity. According to case law of the ECHR is a degrading treatment then, when it violates the parties concerned in his dignity (ECHR 8.7.2004, Ilascu uac MDA, No. 48787/99). In the present case, the Swiss federal court may not, as stated objection that the complainant was harassed by state authorities as part of an escalation screw on and on, the entire apparatus of repression against him was driven by false claims made about Drohszenarien, an attempt was made to the complainant to psychiatrisieren, cantonal anti-terrorist unit against him was summoned, and, finally, ultimately, the public-sector employment on the grounds that the complainant refused to seek assess psychiatric and therefore the relationship of trust was so disturbed that a continuation of the employment relationship was not reasonable. In other words, the notabene at no time disputed the fact that permanently against the complainant by the state authorities, a pressure scenario, with the final goal of the termination of the employment relationship has been established, was approved by the Swiss Federal Court. The Federal Court fails to recognize here that the complainant since the spring of 2006, direct from his superiors with false allegations and suspicions have been put under continuous pressure. Such a procedure is called bullying and harassment that can be described as a degrading treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the ECHR, which must be justified by any circumstances was and is. In particular, it should be noted also that the complainant itself no reason for it has set, that has begun to make it in the bullying situation ready. That the Federal Court has protected under these circumstances, the approach of the authorities is beyond comprehension.
Article 6 ECHR
Article 6 of the ECHR protects the right to a fair trial. Including the right to a fair hearing is to be subsumed. The Court of justice to the parties' arguments and the evidence presented adequate. With the right to be heard and the right to reasons for decisions must be assessed. These principles are violated in casu. The Federal court will contact the complainant previously identified objections are not dismantled in an appropriate manner, but does readily and uncritically the argument of the cantonal court. IT CAN, the Federal Court, for example, the present and indicated bullying issue completely neglected by declaring categorically, the cantonal court had already addressed this issue, which obviously is not the case. A physical examination is not made, the complainant is apparently - by implication - labeled a troublemaker. The complainant cited evidence and explanations, such as the fact that he at no time Drohmails sent had to be bypassed without further notice. It should be noted here again and for all: The Drohmails, which were led by the competent authorities shall, to justify the fraudulent scenario simply does not exist. However, are already of the cantonal court out of context statements, for example, that even Dr. med Westdijk have mentioned that the complainant had suffered irreparable damage, or the complainant had shown towards his father short aggressive outbursts, taken without the the objections of the complainant have been checked. Apparently, the Federal Court the evidence drawn not to rate, otherwise in the case Dr. Westdijk it should have been clear that this with this statement but wanted to emphasize that the behavior is to be designated under the massive pressure of the complainant's situation almost unparalleled. As for the alleged aggressive outbursts against the father, so it should be added that the Canton doctor this only in short clause mentioned and do anyway is not obvious as this, after having run previously, there were no signs of psychiatric problems seen, are justified then should. Also a no-action with the arguments of the complainant in the field of to ascertaining numerical call to the emergency psychiatrist. Contrary to the unfounded view of the Federal Court, whose report was quite taken by the cantonal authority as essential. The federal court itself does so, moreover, by outlining the findings of the medical officer concerning psychiatric investigation are understandable, and the medical officer himself cites but in particular at alleged divergences of the assessment by the emergency psychiatrist and advice from Dr. Westdijk, that defines the report the emergency psychiatrist for his decision as a basis.
Article 8 ECHR Article 8 ECHR
protects the right of the person to respect for private life. A procedure is in accordance Article 8 para 2 ECHR only be based on a statutory basis if possible and necessary, this intervention is relatively fulfilled. Of protection is first the physical and mental integrity. The state available to seek psychiatric survey of a question asked by the authority person is certainly an invasion of privacy in the possible sense, addition, this intervention was not necessary or emergency situation by the authorities themselves had been generated. As has been repeatedly shown around the source was unfortunate development that Ms. Gaby Jeno harm to the complainant to the fullest extent possible, intentionally false allegations of alleged Betr. Self-or foreign threat in the world was, spoke of Drohmails and thus triggered the escalation also repeatedly outlined screw with the attempted psychiatrization and absolutely unjustified raid of the property by an anti-terrorist unit. At this screw was with an invitation for examination by the medical officer, followed by - shot and subsequent call for further psychiatric assessment with renewed dismissal - formally invalid termination. Despite these immense pressure situation - even by the medical officer - no signs of mental illness with appropriate disability seen as moreover by Dr. Westdijk was confirmed accordingly. The already presumed ability to work was therefore refuted contrary to the Federal Court in any way by any incidents, the Federal Court and the Cantonal Court shall, therefore, a mental error, present when both, the aim was to clarify the working capacity of the complainant. Based on the previously outlined initial position can evidently be gone just about anything, that the complainant wanted to get rid of the one that can write medically unable to work. Under these circumstances, it was for the complainant, who was the victim of a real psychological terror, of course, no reason, a psychiatric Evaluation to accept. The corresponding instruction accordingly has infringed the right to respect for private life, which is why the subsequent termination of employment was not justified.
In conclusion, accordingly, in this case violated various guarantees of the Convention. This injury is to identify and to instruct the Swiss Confederation to change by a corresponding revision of the decision of the Federal Court Judgement. Eventualiter the complainant a reasonable compensation must be aligned. Based on the fact that, ultimately, by the method of the professional existence of the complainant had been destroyed, compensation will of CHF 1,000,000 .- as appropriate. In addition, the Board of the defendant court costs and attorneys' fees shall provide the complainant.
