Facts
The case concerns the notification of a seizure report to a debtor, X., who was in preventive detention at the time of the notification. The main question was whether Art. 60 of the DEBA applied in this case as well, obliging the debt collection office to grant the detained debtor a deadline to appoint a representative.
The Federal Tribunal confirmed its previous case law, according to which Art. 60 DEBA also applies when notifying a seizure report, in order to allow the detained debtor to take the necessary measures to protect his interests. However, the Federal Tribunal modified its case law on the consequences of non-compliance with Art. 60 DEBA: the non-observance of this provision no longer results in the invalidity of the notification, but has the effect of delaying the start of the appeal period.
Considerations
According to the Federal Tribunal, the purpose of Art. 60 DEBA is to enable the detained debtor, whose freedom of movement and sometimes even mental capacities are restricted, to adequately defend his interests. Consequently, the notification of the seizure report does not take effect for the debtor and does not trigger the appeal period until he has had the opportunity to…