Facts
The case concerns a complaint against the setting of the deadline for filing a claim in the objection procedure pursuant to Art. 36 and Art. 106 et seq. of the DEBA. The complainant had missed the deadline for filing a complaint against the setting of the deadline by the debt collection office, whereupon the cantonal supervisory authority issued a decision of non-entry.
The Federal Court, however, rejected this argument. It stated that the suspensive effect ordered by the supervisory authority pursuant to Art. 36 DEBA has the effect that the time limit starts to run anew after the suspension has ended. Thus, in the event that the complaint is upheld, the supervisory authority decides which party the deadline for filing a claim with the judge is to be set for. A decision of non-entry or a dismissal of the complaint, on the other hand, merely has the consequence that the party role distribution ordered by the debt collection office remains in effect.
Considerations
The Federal Court further states that it is established practice that the debt collection office is instructed with the final decision of the supervisory authority to reset the deadline for filing a claim before the judge. This applies both to the old version of Art. 107 para. 1 DEBA and to the new…