Facts
In the debt collection case no. 737 against Dr. iur. K., the debt collection officer delivered the payment order on October 26, 1972 to the debtor's wife at the debtor's residence. On October 27, 1972, the debtor informed the debt collection office by telephone that he was filing a legal objection. The office then demanded a written confirmation, as a mere telephonic declaration of a legal objection was not sufficient. The debtor disagreed with this view, but then wrote to the office on October 30, 1972 on a transmission slip that he was filing a legal objection.
The debtor filed a complaint against the debt collection office, arguing that it had violated Art. 74 of the Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Act (SchKG) by refusing to accept the orally declared legal objection. The lower supervisory authority did not enter into the complaint, as the debtor, in view of his written legal objection, had no legal interest in having the validity of his oral legal objection assessed.
The debtor's appeal to the upper cantonal supervisory authority, in which he designated his complaint as a supervisory complaint, was dismissed. The debtor has appealed this decision to the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. It states that the complaint within the meaning of Art. 17 SchKG is only admissible if the complainant can achieve a practical purpose in the field of enforcement if the complaint is upheld. Since the debt collection proceedings against the appellant have in any case been stayed by his timely written legal objection, the complaint serves no practical purpose.
The Federal Supreme Court adheres to its established case law, according to which complaints for the sole purpose of establishing the unlawfulness of an act or omission of an enforcement authority are inadmissible. However, the cantonal supervisory authorities and the Federal Supreme Court as the…