Facts
In this case, it was about the service of a payment order by public notice pursuant to Art. 66 para. 4 DEBA. The creditor K. had executed the attachment against the debtor C. at the business premises of a Swiss bank and then initiated debt enforcement proceedings. Since the service of the payment order to the address of the debtor in Ireland provided by the creditor proved impossible, the debt collection office arranged for the public notice of the payment order.
The debtor C. then filed a complaint against the debt collection office and demanded the revocation of the payment order and all continuation actions in the contested debt enforcement proceedings. She indicated an address in the United States as her domicile.
The cantonal supervisory authority upheld the complaint, revoked the public notice of the payment order and instructed the debt collection office to serve the payment order at the domicile indicated by the debtor. Against this decision, the creditor K. filed an appeal with the Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Chamber.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the cantonal supervisory authority had decided correctly. Service of the payment order by public notice is indeed only the last resort, which must not be resorted to before the debt collection office has undertaken all appropriate investigations to find a possible service address of the debtor.
In the present case, the debt collection office had indeed asked the creditor for another address of the debtor, but she had stated that she did not know of any other address. However, the Federal Supreme Court found that the bank at whose branch the attachment had been executed could have provided the debt collection…