Facts
Debtor [B.] filed a complaint with the lower supervisory authority for debt collection and bankruptcy proceedings in the district of Uster, requesting that the notification of the payment orders in debt collection proceedings nos. 439 and 449 of August 4, 1990 be declared invalid and that the deadline for filing an objection be restored. The district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the debtor had wrongfully refused to receive the payment orders. B.'s appeal against this decision was also rejected by the higher court of the canton of Zurich. On appeal, the Federal Tribunal upheld B.'s appeal to the extent that it was admissible and ordered the debt collection office to properly notify the debtor of the payment orders.Considerations
According to case law, the notification of the payment order must be made at the debtor's domicile or the place where they usually carry out their professional activity, in accordance with Art. 64 para. 1 DEBA. If the debtor is not present, the notification can be made to an adult person belonging to their household or to an employee. If none of these persons are present, the payment order must be handed over to a municipal or police official, in accordance with Art. 64 para. 2 DEBA.
In the present case, the recalcitrant behavior of debtor [B.] and their announcement of not opening the door of their domicile should have led…