Facts
In this case, [T.] filed a complaint against the seizure notices issued by the Debt Collection Office of Montreux in the context of debt collection proceedings No. 43'208 and No. 43'209 initiated by X. and Y. respectively. [T.] contested the validity of the notification of the payment orders against him, claiming that he had not received them.
It is established that [T.] was domiciled in Blonay as of January 1, 1983, but it is not proven that he was already residing there on December 1, 1982, the date on which the payment orders would have been notified to his wife by the municipal police of Blonay. The cantonal authority did not examine this point, considering that it was irrelevant since [T.] had not filed a complaint within 10 days following the notification.
However, the Federal Tribunal considers that if the payment order has not reached the debtor's hands due to a defect in the notification, the debt collection proceedings are absolutely null and void, and this nullity can be established at any time, regardless of the 10-day deadline to file an objection.
Considerations
In the present case, the cantonal authority did not establish that the payment orders had actually reached [T.] more than 10 days before his complaint of November 3, 1983. The mere fact that [T.] became aware of debt collection proceedings No. 43'208 through a letter from the fiduciary Fiduper dated September 2, 1983 is not sufficient to start the time limits, as the debtor must have been aware of the exact content of the payment order.
Therefore, if the conditions for the validity of the…