Facts
The case concerns a complaint against a debt enforcement notice and a precautionary protective measure taken by the Debt Collection Office of Basel-Stadt. The debtor E.F. objected to the debt enforcement notice dated November 22, 1988 for November 24, 1988, as it had been served on his former attorney, who had informed the Debt Collection Office that the mandate no longer existed. Furthermore, he requested that the amount of CHF 443.50 paid to the Civil Court of Basel-Stadt for court costs be deducted from the debt enforcement amount. Finally, he requested a stay of the debt enforcement until the dispute over the power of representation of two attorneys of the creditor (or their estate) had been decided.
The cantonal supervisory authority dismissed the complaint, insofar as it was admissible. The debtor then filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court overturned the decision of the cantonal supervisory authority. It found that a subsequent remediation of the defective debt enforcement notice was excluded, as the debtor did not participate in the debt enforcement. Furthermore, the files did not indicate whether the debt enforcement had actually been carried out.
Regarding the protective measure ordered by the Debt Collection Office pursuant to Art. 99 DEBA against the Basellandschaftliche Kantonalbank, the Federal Supreme Court considered this to be inadmissible. It stated that…