Facts
The Russian Federation was the subject of legal proceedings brought by Noga d'Importation et d'Exportation SA for the recovery of a claim of 1,185,600,000 Swiss francs. The Debt Collection Office of Geneva then seized assets held by IATA (International Air Transport Association) on behalf of the Russian Federation. The Moscow Center for Automated Air Traffic Control (MAATC), which claims ownership of these assets, filed a complaint against this seizure with the Supervisory Commission of Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Offices of the Canton of Geneva. In parallel, the Russian Federation also contested the seizure. After several decisions and appeals, the Supervisory Commission ultimately rejected MAATC's complaint, considering that despite doubts about the ownership of the assets, the provisional seizure was in accordance with federal law.Considerations
4. The appellant MAATC argues that only assets legally belonging to the Russian Federation can be seized, excluding those of which it would only be the economic beneficiary. However, the Federal Tribunal considers that the office is not required to refuse the seizure as long as the ownership of the assets by the debtor is not clearly established. Doubts or disputes over ownership do not result in the nullity of the seizure, but only oblige the office to open a claim procedure. 5. The appellant then argues that the seized assets are immune from execution by virtue of the immunity of foreign states. The Federal Tribunal examines the conditions set by public international law for this immunity to be lifted: 5.1. The disputed claim must be related to a private law activity (iure gestionis) and not a public authority activity (iure imperii) of the foreign state. This condition is met in the present…