Facts
On 7 November 2003, creditor Z. obtained an attachment order against debtor Y. for a claim of CHF 3,292,005.50. Thereupon, Z. initiated debt collection proceedings against Y., in which the Debt Collection Office Baar seized the attached claim on 2 February 2004. Y., who was not present at the seizure, received the seizure document on 11 March 2004.
On 12, 20 and 24 February 2004, the respondents W. and co-participants also obtained attachment orders against Y. for a total claim of CHF 250,132.15.
The respondents filed a complaint against the seizure, as the seizure notice had been served on the debtor with delay. The supervisory authority partially upheld the complaint and decided that the respondents' provisional participation in the seizure was legally valid, as the seizure was only executed upon service of the seizure document on the absent debtor on 11 March 2004.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that the execution of the seizure only took place when the seizure document was served on the debtor. Until then, the seizure had no effect and was not legally executed.
An attachment has the same effects as a seizure, but is not…