Facts
On March 13, 1964, the creditor obtained an attachment order in Zug against the debtor domiciled in Mülheim an der Ruhr and subsequently initiated debt collection proceedings. On March 23, the Zug debt collection office issued payment order no. 3540 and forwarded it on March 30 for service abroad. On May 26, the debtor's attorney in Zug filed a legal objection, although the payment order had not yet been served at that time.
In August 1964, the debt collection office determined that the payment order had not yet been served and forwarded a new copy to the creditor's attorney. It noted that the payment order had been served on the debtor by the Mülheim District Court on June 3. On September 30, the original creditor's copy of the payment order with the service certificate dated September 24 then arrived.
The creditor filed a complaint against the consideration of the legal objection of May 26, as it had been filed before the service of the payment order and was therefore invalid.
Considerations
The Federal Court essentially holds that a legal objection is tied to the service of the payment order and can normally only be filed after such service. However, a legal objection referring to a debt collection proceeding with a specific payment order is also valid if it is filed before the actual service of the payment order.
In the present case, the debt collection office had already recognized the legal objection of May 26, 1964 as valid. The Federal Court confirms that this legal objection remained effective, even though the service of the payment order…