Facts
On December 29, 1999 and January 3, 2000, the Debt Collection Office X. took a retention certificate for rent claims of CHF 20,060.- of the Y. AG against the [Z. AG] in the rented premises. In the course of the execution of the retention, the Debt Collection Office had the lock of the entrance door to the premises changed, removed the locking cylinder of the goods lift leading directly into the premises, and blocked the lift door with a steel cable. The debt collection proceedings were only initiated later. The Debt Collection Office included CHF 217.70 as "locksmith costs" in the cost calculation for the execution of the retention. The [Z. AG] then filed a complaint with the District Court and demanded that the procedure of the Debt Collection Office in carrying out the retention was inadmissible and that the item "locksmith costs" be deleted from the cost calculation.Considerations
The Federal Court concluded that the Debt Collection Office had wrongly ordered the replacement of the door cylinders. A mutatis mutandis application of the provisions on security measures in the case of seizure (Art. 98 DEBA) to the retention procedure only comes into consideration when the procedure has reached a stage that can be equated with the seizure in ordinary debt collection. This is only the case when the claim, the satisfaction of which is sought from the…