Debt Collection Against a Debtor Without a Fixed Domicile in Switzerland

Facts

The appellant S. was served a payment order by the Debt Collection Office D. in B., which referred to a bill of exchange and a special domicile in B. S. filed a complaint against the debt collection, as he was domiciled in L. and neither stayed in B. nor had established a special domicile there. The cantonal supervisory authority dismissed the complaint. S. then filed an appeal to the Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the annulment of the contested judgment and the debt collection, or alternatively, the remission of the case to the cantonal supervisory authority for clarification of the actual circumstances.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court granted the appeal and annulled the debt collection. It stated that the appellant had no longer had a fixed domicile in Switzerland since 1988 and therefore could not be pursued at his Swiss domicile (Art. 46 para. 1 DEBA). While deregistration with the authorities is only an indication of the intention to permanently reside elsewhere, which must be assessed independently, since the appellant had registered with the Swiss Embassy in L. and provided a known address there, it could at least not be excluded that he was actually staying there and that this was his center of life. Consequently, he could not be pursued at a Swiss place of residence (Art. 48 DEBA).

Furthermore, the mere occasional presence of the appellant in B. was not sufficient…