Facts
The appellant filed an action for debt release on 1 June 1999. The cantonal court dismissed his appeal, considering that the failure to pay the advance on costs within the time limit prescribed by cantonal law did not constitute a remediable formal defect within the meaning of Art. 139 CO, nor a ground for the application of Art. 32(3) and (4) DEBA. The debt collection office was therefore justified in continuing the debt collection proceedings by serving the bankruptcy warning on the debtor.Considerations
The Federal Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal. It considered that Art. 32(3) DEBA only applies when the withdrawal or inadmissibility is due to the court's lack of jurisdiction, and not when it is due to the failure to pay the advance on costs. Similarly, the failure to pay the advance on costs does not constitute a "remediable defect" within the meaning of Art. 32(4) DEBA and 139 CO.…