Facts
The present case concerned the revocation of the increase in bid for plot no. 560 in favor of Ms. Camenzind. The higher cantonal supervisory authority had declared the increase in bid void, as the debt enforcement officer had exceeded his material jurisdiction in the preparation of the encumbrance register and had established a new easement in favor of plot no. 1318. Ms. Camenzind, the acquirer of plot no. 560, filed an appeal against this decision with the Federal Supreme Court.
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It stated that the principle from BGE 73 III 23 et seq., according to which an increase in bid can no longer be revoked after the expiry of one year, does not apply without restriction in the case of serious procedural defects. In the present case, there was a ground for nullity, as the provisions in the encumbrance register on the establishment of a new easement were null and void due to the officer's lack of material jurisdiction. A null and void order can generally be revoked at any time ex officio.
However, the revocation of a void increase in bid must not be unlimited with regard to the acquirer. In the present case, the question of the validity of the increase in bid in favor of Ms. Camenzind was already seriously questioned within the framework of official proceedings before the expiry of one year, so…