Facts

The appellant X. had assigned his income to the debtor Z. The debt collection creditor Y. successfully challenged this assignment under Art. 288 DEBA. The avoidance judgment of the Federal Court affected two subsequent wage garnishments:

  • Garnishment No. 1 (wage shares May 2001 to April 2002): The debt collection office settled the proceeds of this garnishment in favor of Y.
  • Garnishment No. 2 (wage shares March 3, 1999 to March 3, 2000): The debt collection office temporarily withheld the proceeds accruing to Y.

X. filed a complaint against the settlement of the debt collection office in Garnishment No. 1.

Considerations

The Federal Court upholds the complaint. It states that the avoidance judgment only has effect for the debt collection proceeding in which it was issued, but not for other debt collection proceedings. Therefore, the avoidance judgment in Garnishment No. 2 cannot be transferred to Garnishment No. 1.

Furthermore, the debt collection office has recognized the third-party claim asserted by the appellant under Art. 108 para. 3 DEBA, since the debt collection creditor has not filed a lawsuit to contest the third-party claim. Therefore, the debt…