Facts
On January 30, 1996, [E.] sold the properties GB x, GB y, and GB z to his son B. The contracting parties established a right of pre-emption, which was noted in the land register. [E.] died on April 18, 2003. His heirs are his son B. and his daughter K. By letter of December 18, 2003, K. declared to B. "exercise of the right of pre-emption based on the purchase agreement concluded by you with [D.] on September 19, 2003". On January 15, 2004, the land registry office announced that the transfer of ownership to [D.] had been registered in the land register. K. (plaintiff) initiated proceedings against her brother B. (defendant) and against D. (defendant) for ownership of the property GB x on March 23, 2004. The complaint was partially upheld by the cantonal court. Both defendants have filed an appeal against the cantonal court judgment and request the FSCA to dismiss the complaint (5A_225/2007 and 5A_207/2007). With their appeal to the FSCA, the plaintiff requests that the complaint be upheld (5A_224/2007).
Considerations
The FSCA has not expressed itself conclusively in its case law on the two solutions - conditional filing of an appeal or unconditional filing of an appeal with the reservation of subsequent withdrawal - but has regularly adhered to the principle of the inadmissibility of conditional procedural actions. The filing of an appeal under the condition that the opposing party also files an appeal is inadmissible.
Allowing a conditional appeal would affect the integrity of the proceedings and could be used as a means of pressure to prevent the opposing party from filing an appeal. It cannot be considered…