Facts
In the context of various debt enforcement proceedings against him, X. filed a complaint against the decision of the debt enforcement office setting the seizeable portion of his income. He notably criticized the fact that it did not take into account the premiums for his supplementary health insurance. After the Supervisory Commission for Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Offices of the Canton of Geneva rejected the complaint, the debtor appealed to the Federal Supreme Court in a civil matter, which was dismissed.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court recalls that the determination of the subsistence minimum according to Art. 93 para. 1 DEBA is a matter of assessment. It therefore only intervenes in case of abuse or excess, for example when the cantonal authority has applied inappropriate criteria or has not taken into account relevant circumstances. However, the Federal Supreme Court freely reviews cantonal decisions that are contrary to the law or based on an erroneous interpretation of legal notions or concepts.
Regarding the consideration of supplementary health insurance premiums, the Federal Supreme Court shares the view of the Cantonal Supervisory Commission that only premiums for mandatory insurance, i.e. for basic coverage, can be taken into account in the calculation of the subsistence minimum. Premiums for supplementary health insurance governed by the ICA constitute purely voluntary contributions going beyond what is necessary for the maintenance of the…