Facts
X. is subject to various enforcement proceedings at the Debt Collection Office of Geneva. In an initial complaint dated March 18, 2005, concerning the calculation of their minimum living allowance and the attachable portion of their income within the framework of an initial series of enforcement proceedings (series no. x), the debtor complained that the office had not taken into account their supplementary health insurance premium and their professional expenses. This complaint was rejected on June 9, 2005 by the Cantonal Supervisory Commission.
On June 9, 2005, at the stage of the communication of the seizure report in the same series, the debtor filed a new complaint, asserting the same grievances. This second complaint was declared inadmissible and struck off the roll by the Cantonal Supervisory Commission on August 11, 2005. The debtor's appeal against this decision was rejected by the Federal Tribunal on October 7, 2005.
On December 1, 2006, within the framework of a new series of enforcement proceedings (series no. y), the debtor filed a third complaint invoking the same grievances. The Cantonal Supervisory Commission dismissed this complaint on February 1, 2007 on the basis of the principle of res judicata.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal considers that the authority of res judicata in debt collection and bankruptcy law has a limited scope: it only applies to the enforcement procedure in question and insofar as the facts remain the same. Thus, the seizure carried out within the framework of a new series under Art. 110 para. 2 DEBA opens the way for a complaint, without being able to invoke the authority of res judicata of decisions rendered…