The consideration of a superprovisional ruling by the land registry office

Facts

The Elox Immobilien AG sold five plots of land to Hans-Beat Imfeld on June 18, 1984. The transfer of ownership was registered with the land registry office in Baden on the same day and entered in the journal. On July 2, 1984, Hans-Beat Imfeld sold part of plot GB No. 226 and plots Nos. 228, 249, and 831 to the Ergänzungskasse Ciba-Geigy. This transfer of ownership was registered with the land registry office in Baden on July 5, 1985, and entered in the journal.

Maria Flury, a shareholder of Elox Immobilien AG, filed a lawsuit to have the purchase contract of June 18, 1984, declared null and void. The President of the District Court of Baden issued a superprovisional ruling on July 12, 1984, instructing the land registry office in Baden not to make any entries regarding the plots of land of Elox AG. The land registry office in Baden refused to comply with this ruling, and Maria Flury filed a complaint with the Department of the Interior of the Canton of Aargau, which was rejected.

Maria Flury appealed to the Administrative Court of the Canton of Aargau, which granted her complaint and instructed the land registry office to comply with the court president's ruling. Elox Immobilien AG, Hans-Beat Imfeld, and Ergänzungskasse Ciba-Geigy filed an administrative appeal with the Federal Court.

Considerations

The Federal Court had to decide whether the land registry office had to comply with the superprovisional ruling of the court president. The lower court had granted the complaint on the grounds that the land registry office had exceeded its authority by refusing to comply with the superprovisionally ordered freeze on registrations.

The Federal Court stated that the lower court should not have left open the question of whether cantonal law provides a statutory basis for ordering a freeze on registrations. The Federal Court cannot review this question itself, as it is a matter of cantonal law. However, it is unnecessary to remand the case to the lower court for this reason, as the land registry administrator was not allowed to comply with the freeze on registrations for other reasons, even if cantonal law provided a statutory basis for it.

The Federal Court further stated that the…