Facts
This decision concerns a civil appeal filed by X. against the Debt Collection Office of Sarine. The main issue concerns the distinction between a complaint against the valuation of real estate and a request for a new valuation by experts in the context of enforcement proceedings.
According to the facts, the Debt Collection Office based its valuation of a property to be realized on an expert opinion. The appellant criticized several aspects of this expert opinion, in particular the inclusion of a plot of land on which she had no lien. She concluded by requesting the annulment of the expert opinion and the performance of a new valuation without taking this plot of land into account.
The Debt Collection Office considered that the appellant had filed a complaint against the valuation, which was the appropriate legal remedy in this case.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal held that the supervisory authority had committed a denial of justice by ordering a new expert opinion instead of ruling on the complaint submitted to it. Indeed, the complaint aimed at contesting the inclusion of a property in the valuation must be treated as a request for a new valuation by experts, in accordance with Article 9(2) of the Ordinance on the Forced…