Facts
On July 18, 1988, X. and Y. filed an appeal against the decisions of the president of the Steckborn district court of June 27/28, 1988, with the appeal commission of the higher court of the canton of Thurgovie. The appeal commission expressed doubts about the observance of the ten-day appeal period and requested the appellants to provide proof of receipt of the decisions within five days, under penalty of not being considered. The appellants refused to provide the required proof, which led the appeal commission not to consider the appeal.
The appellants then filed an appeal with the Chamber of Debt Collection and Bankruptcy of the Federal Court, which was admitted.
Considerations
The Chamber of Debt Collection and Bankruptcy of the Federal Court considered that the cantonal supervisory authorities in debt collection and bankruptcy matters must ex officio verify compliance with the appeal period according to art. 18 para. 1 DEBA. They have the burden of proof that an appeal was not addressed to them in time, at least when the date of notification does not clearly appear from the file due to the form of notification chosen by the lower supervisory authority.
The appeal commission of the higher court of the canton of Thurgovie had required the appellants to provide proof of receipt of the decisions, which is contrary to the jurisprudence of the Federal Court. Indeed, according to the judgment of July 6, 1988, it is up to the cantonal supervisory authorities to verify whether the appeal periods have been respected, and not up to the appellants to provide proof of receipt of the decisions.
The Chamber of Debt Collection and…