Facts
X. AG, represented by Y. AG, a debt collection and trust company, requested the single judge of the District Court of Willisau for definitive or provisional enforcement of its claims against Z. in the pending debt collection proceedings. The single judge instructed the creditor to either file the request for enforcement itself or have it filed by an authorized representative within a specified deadline. Y. AG insisted on its submission, arguing that based on the legal regulations of the Canton of Lucerne, it was entitled to commercially represent parties in the enforcement proceedings. The single judge of the District Court of Willisau dismissed the proceedings, as X. AG had not filed a new legal document within the statutory deadline. The submissions of the unauthorized party representative were considered irrelevant.
The High Court of the Canton of Lucerne dismissed the appeal filed by X. AG against the single judge's decision. Thereupon, the now legally represented X. AG filed a civil law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the annulment of the contested decision and the referral of the case back to the lower instance or the first instance for consideration of the requests for enforcement.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. It states that according to Art. 68 para. 2 lit. c CPC, the commercial representatives under Art. 27 DEBA are indeed authorized to professionally represent the parties in the summary proceedings under Art. 251 CPC. However, this provision does not say anything about whether and how the cantons can organize the commercial representation or make it dependent on certain conditions.
Rather, Art. 27 para. 1 DEBA, which grants the cantons the authority to regulate the commercial representation of the parties involved in the enforcement proceedings, is decisive. Contrary to the…