Facts
B. was employed by A. SA as of April 1, 2006. In May 2006, the Swiss Federal Banking Commission (CFB) appointed attorneys C. and D. as investigators of A. SA. During the investigation, on July 31, 2006, B. resigned. On August 8, 2006, he sued A. SA before the District Court of Lugano, claiming payment of CHF 13,500, plus interest, corresponding to the salary for August 2006 and the balance of accrued and unused vacation.
Following the CFB's decision, the bankruptcy of A. SA was declared on August 25, 2006. On August 29, 2006, the CFB verbally informed the judge of the company's bankruptcy, which was then published on September 1, 2006. The hearing in the case brought by B. took place on August 30, 2006, with only the plaintiff present. By judgment of September 1, 2006, the judge upheld B.'s claim.
The timely appeal filed against this decision by A. SA in liquidation - represented by its liquidator, the CFB - was dismissed on September 14, 2006. The losing party timely filed an appeal for reform with the Federal Court against this judgment.
Considerations
The Federal Court upheld the appeal for reform. According to the Court, the judge violated federal law by issuing a judgment against the bankruptcy estate in the case brought by B. against his former employer A. SA, without having granted the bankruptcy estate the opportunity to decide whether to recognize the plaintiff's claim or to join the ongoing proceedings, which were considered urgent under Art. 207 para. 1 DEBA.
The Court clarified that proceedings concerning wage claims are subject to suspension under Art. 207 para. 1 DEBA, regardless of the type of procedure they are subject to (ordinary or summary).…