Facts
On October 7, 1997, the Debt Collection Office S. informed the debtor T. G.-D. of the receipt of the creditor's realization request. The debtor demanded that the Debt Collection Office reject the realization request as premature. However, the Debt Collection Office dismissed the debtor's application, as the creditor had complied with the minimum period of six months pursuant to Art. 154 para. 1 DEBA.
T. G.-D. filed a complaint against the Debt Collection Office's decision with the Supervisory Authority for Debt Collection and Bankruptcy of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft. She argued that the minimum period of six months for filing the realization request should be extended by the time between the filing of the request for enforcement and the finality of the enforcement decision. However, the Supervisory Authority and the Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court dismissed the complaint.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court clarified that according to the case law and doctrine on the former Art. 154 DEBA, the court proceedings only interrupt the maximum period, but not the minimum period. The amendment of Art. 154 para. 1 DEBA in the revision of the Federal Act on Debt Collection and Bankruptcy did not change this.
The Federal Supreme Court explained that Art. 154 para. 1 DEBA, as well as Art. 88 para. 2 and Art. 166 para. 2 DEBA, indicate that…