Facts
Y. filed a claim with the District Court of Rheinfelden on December 28, 2012 for the contestation of new assets pursuant to Art. 265a para. 4 DEBA. The defendant in this proceeding is X. AG.
On June 11, 2013, X. AG made various requests, including the request that the claimant be obliged to provide security for the party compensation and expenses of the defendant party as determined by the court's discretion according to the Decree on the Compensation of Lawyers.
The District Court dismissed the request for security. X. AG then filed a complaint with the High Court of the Canton of Aargau and requested the reversal of the order. However, the High Court did not enter into the complaint.
X. AG then filed a civil law complaint and subsidiarily a subsidiary constitutional complaint with the Federal Supreme Court. It demanded that Y. be obliged to provide security for the party compensation and expenses as determined by the court's discretion, at least in the amount of the basic compensation of CHF 10,515.30 plus VAT.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the request for security for party compensation pursuant to Art. 99 CPC does not need to be quantified. This is for the following reasons:
Firstly, the present case differs from BGE 137 III 617, on which the High Court had relied. That case concerned the contestation of maintenance contributions, i.e. claims on the merits that need to be quantified. Here, it is merely a secondary claim, namely the security for party compensation.
Secondly, the District Court did not assess the amount of the security, as it dismissed the request due to the free legal assistance granted to the opposing party. The High Court would thus have been the first…