Key legal question
Whether the three-month suspension of the right to practise physiotherapy violated economic freedom and proportionality under Arts. 9, 27 and 36 Cst.
Extracted holding
The suspension was based on a sufficient legal basis, pursued a public interest, and was proportionate in light of the seriousness of the misconduct and the appellant's situation.
Extracted reasoning
The court found that the cantonal court balanced public and private interests properly. A one-month suspension would be ineffective as a sanction, while three months was measured and suitable to prevent recurrence and protect patients.