Facts
In two proceedings initiated by company B. AG against A., the latter filed a debt release action. He also filed a claim for compensation against the creditor. The Cantonal Court of the Canton of Solothurn refused to consider this claim for compensation, on the grounds that the creditor domiciled in Bern objected to it based on Art. 59 Cst. A. appealed against this decision.Considerations
The SCC dismisses the appeal. It considers that the debt release action and the claim for compensation constitute a joinder of two actions, although the roles of the parties are reversed. However, such a joinder is only possible if the material and local jurisdictions coincide. In the present case, only the material jurisdiction is fulfilled, but not the local jurisdiction, since the parties are not domiciled in the same canton. Consequently, the Cantonal Court was right to refuse to consider the claim for compensation, in accordance with the established case law in…