Facts
This judgment concerns a wage garnishment carried out under Article 93 of the Federal Act on Debt Collection and Bankruptcy (DEBA). The defendant, a debtor, had her minimum subsistence level set at 2'514 francs by the cantonal court, after the court took into account her housing costs and health insurance premiums. The creditor appealed this decision to the Chamber of Debt Collection and Bankruptcy of the Federal Court, requesting that the minimum subsistence level be restored to 1'604 francs.
The facts of the case are as follows: the debtor had not paid her rent or health insurance premiums and her housing had been terminated. The cantonal court considered that, although the debtor had not paid these costs, it would not be in line with the purpose of the law to exclude them from her minimum subsistence level, as this would put her in a difficult situation.
Considerations
The Chamber of Debt Collection and Bankruptcy of the Federal Court upheld the creditor's appeal. It considered that, in accordance with case law, only the amounts actually paid by the debtor can be taken into account when calculating their minimum subsistence level. The chamber estimated that the cantonal court had erred in including rent and health insurance premiums in the debtor's minimum subsistence level, even though she had not paid them.
The chamber also considered that the debtor may request a review of the garnishment of their salary if they can prove that they have concluded a rental agreement or an insurance contract and actually pay the agreed-upon rent or…