Facts
The appellant [X.] had filed a complaint against the surcharge for the part of the property B, which was auctioned off to [Z.] . The Cantonal Court of Schwyz had dismissed the complaint. The Federal Supreme Court has now remanded the case back to the Cantonal Court for a new assessment. The decisive factor is whether [Z.] had the required acquisition permit for the agricultural property. The Agricultural Office had issued a declaratory decision, but this did not constitute an acquisition permit. Such a permit is mandatory for the acquisition of an agricultural property in enforcement proceedings. Without an acquisition permit, the surcharge is generally null and void, even if it was initially granted lawfully. The Debt Collection Office must now examine whether [Z.] applied for and obtained the acquisition permit or not. Depending on the result, the surcharge must be revoked or upheld.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that a mere declaratory decision of the Agricultural Office on the permissibility of the acquisition is not sufficient to enable the acquisition of an agricultural property in enforcement proceedings. Rather, a separate acquisition permit is required. Whether such a permit was available could not be conclusively clarified based on the files. The Federal Supreme Court further states that the appellant did not request the revocation of the surcharge too late. Although the Debt Collection and…