Applicability of the Lawyer's Monopoly in Subsidiary Constitutional Complaint

Facts

In the debt collection proceedings initiated by the Canton of Solothurn against X., the single judge in the summary proceedings at the District Court of Zurich granted definitive enforcement. Against this, X., represented by the trust company Y., filed a nullity appeal with the High Court of the Canton of Zurich. By decision of October 19, 2007, the nullity appeal was dismissed. X., represented by the trust company Y., has taken the matter to the Federal Supreme Court. The Federal Supreme Court does not enter into the subsidiary constitutional complaint.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examines ex officio whether a legal remedy is admissible. Since the amount in dispute does not reach the minimum of 30,000 Swiss francs, only the subsidiary constitutional complaint under Art. 113 et seq. BGG is admissible.

The Federal Supreme Court states that the lawyer's monopoly pursuant to Art. 40 para. 1 BGG extends as far in the scope of the subsidiary constitutional complaint as it does in the unified complaint: It applies in civil and criminal matters, but not in public law matters. Since decisions in debt…