Facts
On September 1, 1982, the Debt Collection Office in Wädenswil received a request from [K. AG] for debt collection against L. AG in liquidation. The same day, the Debt Collection Office requested a cost advance from the creditor. In a letter dated September 20, 1982, it informed the creditor that no action could be taken on its debt collection request, as the liquidator and thus the representative of the debtor company were not named, and consequently the identification of the debtor as required by Art. 67 para. 1 no. 2 DEBA was deficient. An appeal against this decision filed by [K. AG] was dismissed by the District Court of Horgen and the High Court of the Canton of Zurich. On January 27, 1983, [K. AG] filed a recourse with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting that the Debt Collection Office in Wädenswil be instructed to serve the payment order on the debtor immediately.
Considerations
According to Art. 67 para. 1 no. 2 DEBA, the name and domicile of the debtor and, if applicable, of its legal representative must be stated in the debt collection request. In the case of a legal entity, the creditor must provide the name of an authorized representative to whom the payment order can be served. If this information is missing, the Debt Collection Office must immediately inform the creditor and give them the opportunity to supplement it.
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the Debt Collection Office had violated federal law by not acting on the debt collection request, based on an incorrect application of Art. 67 para. 1 no. 2 DEBA, instead of inquiring with the creditor about the name of the liquidator and serving the payment order to them. The identification of the debtor was correct and complete, and there were no doubts about the…