Facts
In 1995, Bank X. initiated debt enforcement proceedings against V. for the realisation of a real estate pledge. The property encumbrance register mentioned an unregistered agricultural lease concluded between V. (owner) and his wife (tenant) for a duration of fifteen years. At the creditor's request, the debt collection office provided in the conditions of sale that the property would be subject to a double auction price (Art. 142 DEBA) due to the existing lease contract. V. and his wife unsuccessfully challenged this condition of sale before the cantonal supervisory authorities and then before the Federal Tribunal.Considerations
The Federal Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the spouses V. The Court considered that Art. 14 of the Federal Act on Agricultural Leases (LALA), which provides for the transfer of the lease to the acquirer in the event of compulsory realisation, does not call into question the protection of mortgage creditors under Art. 812(2) of the Civil Code (CC). This is a gap in the law that must be filled by an analogous application of Art. 812 CC and the corresponding provisions of debt enforcement law (Art. 142 DEBA, Arts. 56 and 104 FSREO).
According to the Federal Tribunal, the legislator, in adopting Art. 14 LALA, pragmatically aimed to protect the tenant, without taking into account the interests of mortgage creditors. It could not, therefore, have implicitly called into question the protection of the latter, exhaustively…