Facts
Company [P.] granted a loan of 300,000 francs to A. [G.], in Granges-Veveyse. On May 31, 1978, company [P.] sent a request for enforcement by realization of a pledge to the Debt Collection Office of Veveyse for the sum of 6,912 francs 45, being the interest due on December 31, 1977. By mistake, the Office opened an ordinary debt collection proceedings by way of seizure or bankruptcy. In the meantime, the creditor has requested the opening of two new debt collection proceedings by realization of a pledge, one for 7,875 francs representing the interest due on June 30, 1978, the other for 300,000 francs, being the capital of the loan denounced for October 31, 1978.
On August 7, 1979, the Debt Collection Office decided to stay the debt collection proceedings opened against A. [G.] for a period of one month, due to his total incapacity to work since March 12, 1979, as attested by a medical certificate. Company [P.] filed a complaint with the cantonal supervisory authority, requesting the revocation of this stay of enforcement.
Considerations
According to case law, the complaint to the supervisory authority and the appeal to the Federal Tribunal aim to ensure the proper conduct of the enforcement proceedings and cannot be used solely to establish an irregularity. Although the stay of enforcement granted on August 7, 1979 had ended before the filing of the appeal, the creditor has a practical interest in having the conditions of its granting examined.
Under Article 61 of the Federal Act on Debt Collection and Bankruptcy, the debt collection officer may stay the enforcement proceedings in the event of serious illness of the debtor, provided that the cessation of activity due to illness is the cause…