Facts
The appellant E. W. demanded from the Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court the revocation of the adjudication of a property that had previously been in the joint ownership of her and the successful bidder H. W. She in particular criticized a violation of the principle of investigation enshrined in Art. 20a para. 2 no. 2 DEBA, as witnesses called by her had not been heard in the cantonal proceedings.
Considerations
Pursuant to Art. 20a para. 2 no. 2 DEBA, the supervisory authority shall establish the facts ex officio and may require the parties to cooperate. This provision corresponds in content to Art. 12 and 13 of the Administrative Procedure Act, but does not mean that the supervisory authorities for debt collection and bankruptcy must in every case conduct as extensive investigations as in administrative proceedings.
Where the establishment of the facts inevitably requires the taking of evidence, the supervisory authorities should indeed resort to the usual procedural means of proof, but their investigations should remain within reasonable limits and not unnecessarily delay the compulsory realization…