Facts
In the debt collection proceedings initiated by X. A.A.E (the appellant) against A. Ltd., the debt collection office seized assets with an estimated value of around CHF 22 million. Y. AG (the respondent) asserted third-party claims to the seized assets.
With a claim filed on February 27, 2012, to the Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich, the appellant requested that the debt collection and seizure proceedings be continued regardless of the rights claimed by the respondent, or that the respondent's asserted lien claims be denied in accordance with Art. 108 para. 1 DEBA.
The Commercial Court did not enter into the claim, as it was a debt collection dispute with a reflexive effect on substantive law, which does not fall within its jurisdiction.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court confirms the rejection of the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. According to Art. 6 para. 2 CPC, a dispute is only a commercial matter if the business activity of at least one party is affected, the decision can be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court in civil matters, and the parties are registered in the commercial register or a comparable foreign register.
The Federal Supreme Court states that debt collection lawsuits with a reflexive effect on substantive law do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. This is based on the legislative history, according to which the cantons of Zurich, Bern, and Aargau had assigned such claims to the ordinary courts prior to the entry into force of the CPC. The legislator wanted to maintain this…