Facts
In the attachment proceedings against [A.] , the Bern-Mittelland Debt Enforcement Office calculated a seizeable quota of CHF 780.-- for the first time on 22 October 2015. [A.] then filed a "complaint for denial of justice and delay" with the Cantonal Court of Bern, the supervisory authority in debt enforcement and bankruptcy matters. He requested the suspension of the attachment proceedings and the decision of the Debt Enforcement Office, as well as the ordering of interim measures.
The Cantonal Court dismissed the request for suspensive effect. [A.] then filed a civil law appeal with the FSCA and requested the annulment of the contested decision and that the Cantonal Court be ordered to take the appropriate precautionary measures.
Considerations
The FSCA dismissed the appeal. It stated that the debt enforcement law appeal under Art. 17 DEBA does not have suspensive effect by law. The granting or refusal of suspensive effect is a discretionary decision of the supervisory authority. The lower court had duly considered the appellant's request for suspensive effect and limited the granting of suspensive effect to the necessary minimum. The appellant was unable to show that the…