TF, 29.09.2025, 9F_20/2025
Facts
An individual filed a claim for damages against the City of St. Gallen, which was dismissed as inadmissible in both the first and second cantonal instances, with the individual ordered to pay CHF 500 in legal costs. Subsequent appeals and requests for revision filed with the Federal Supreme Court were all declared inadmissible.
The individual later requested that the cantonal court waive the CHF 500 in legal costs, a request that was denied. An appeal against this refusal was declared inadmissible by the Federal Supreme Court (judgment 9D_7/2025). A first request for revision against this inadmissibility ruling was also deemed inadmissible by the Federal Supreme Court (judgment 9F_15/2025) on the grounds that it failed to meet the requirements for substantiation.
The applicant has filed a new request for revision, this time targeting judgment 9F_15/2025, which had declared the previous request for revision inadmissible.
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates that its judgments become final upon pronouncement (Art. 61 LTF). They may only be revised based on one of the grounds exhaustively listed in Art. 121 et seq. LTF. The applicant must invoke a statutory ground for revision and demonstrate how the challenged judgment is flawed (Art. 42 para. 1 and 2 LTF).
When the judgment for which revision is sought is a decision not to enter into the merits, the grounds for revision must specifically address the reasons for the inadmissibility, rather than the merits of the case, which were not examined.
Revision on the grounds of failure to address certain claims (Art. 121 lit. c LTF) is excluded in the case of a decision not to enter into the merits, as such a decision, by its nature, does not examine the substantive claims.
Revision for inadvertence—that is, when the court has failed to take into account relevant facts appearing in the file (Art. 121 lit. d LTF)—cannot be invoked to challenge a legal assessment or an evaluation of evidence deemed incorrect. Revision does not constitute a disguised appeal process.
Application to the case at hand
The Federal Supreme Court examines the grounds for revision invoked by the applicant (Art. 121 lit. c and d LTF).
The ground based on Art. 121 lit. c LTF is dismissed immediately, as the challenged judgment (9F_15/2025) was a decision not to enter into the merits which, by definition, did not rule on the substantive claims.
Regarding Art. 121 lit. d LTF, the applicant claims that the Federal Supreme Court failed to take into account proof of his indigence. The Court notes that the applicant is attempting to obtain a new decision on the merits of his request for a waiver of costs. However, he cannot use the revision process to challenge the validity of the initial decision. His request for revision should have addressed the reasons for the inadmissibility of his previous request (i.e., the lack of substantiation), which he failed to do. He does not demonstrate how the Federal Supreme Court inadvertently ignored a relevant fact concerning the reasons for the non-admission.
The other grievances (violation of Art. 29 of the Constitution, and Arts. 6 and 13 of the ECHR) are also inadmissible as they do not correspond to any of the grounds for revision provided by law.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declares the request for revision inadmissible.
Exceptionally, it waives the collection of legal costs. However, it warns the applicant that in the future, further abusive or vexatious filings in this matter may be filed away without response.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau
