Facts
On 14 June 2002, company X., in Moscow (the creditor) obtained, in Geneva, two attachment orders against Y., in Jeddah, and A. Ltd, on the Isle of Man. The Arve-Lac Debt Collection Office immediately executed these orders. Hotel Z. SA filed four complaints against the execution of these attachments, arguing that the assets in question (in particular the hotel, the bank accounts and the mortgage bond) were its property and not that of the attached debtor. The Supervisory Authority for Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Offices of the Canton of Geneva upheld the complaints, found the attachments null and void and ordered their lifting. The creditor appealed to the DFC to confirm the validity of the attachments.Considerations
Under the new debt enforcement law that entered into force on 1 January 1997, the powers of the debt collection authorities are limited to the formal control of the attachment order and the actual measures of execution of the attachment. Objections concerning the substantive conditions of the attachment, in particular those relating to the ownership or title of the assets to be attached and the abuse of rights, fall within the jurisdiction of the judge hearing the objection (Art. 278 DEBA).
In the present case, the cantonal supervisory authority ruled on issues of ownership and designation of the…