Decision of the Supervisory Guardianship Authority of the Canton of Neuchâtel to appoint a special curator for an insured person of the State Pension Fund

Facts

On 4 February 1983, the Department of Agriculture of the Canton of Neuchâtel dismissed X, a civil servant appointed in 1951. The State Council confirmed this decision. By judgment of 4 November 1983, the Administrative Court dismissed an appeal by X, as settlement negotiations had failed due to the appellant's obstinacy.

On 23 December 1983, the State Pension Fund of Neuchâtel wrote to X that, as an insured person, he had two options: to remain insured as an independent member for the period from 1 June 1983 to 30 September 1983 and receive a pension of CHF 3,081.75 per month from 1 October to 31 December 1983, then CHF 3,269.15 from 1 January 1984 onwards; or to obtain a full lump-sum withdrawal indemnity of CHF 164,323.65, excluding interest. X refused to choose between these two solutions.

Given this obstinacy, the Public Prosecutor's Office requested the Guardianship Authority to examine whether it would be appropriate to take guardianship measures. By decision of 14 August 1984, this authority, applying Art. 392 para. 1 CC, appointed the lawyer Y as a special curator for X and invited him to report to it before taking a position on behalf of the aforementioned regarding the Pension Fund's letter of 23 December 1983.

On 24 September 1984, the Supervisory Guardianship Authority dismissed X's appeal, to the extent that it was admissible.

Considerations

Pursuant to Art. 392 para. 1 CC, the guardianship authority establishes a curatorship when an adult is unable, due to illness, absence or other similar causes, to act in an urgent matter, nor to appoint a representative himself. This guardianship measure is, by its nature, provisional, the curator being required to limit himself to executing the special mandate entrusted to him in accordance with the instructions of the guardianship authority.

In the present case, the cantonal authority considered that the conditions for the application of Art. 392 para. 1 CC were met. X is convinced that he was not validly dismissed from his duties and that he is therefore entitled, as…