Facts
In a judgment of 14 June 2013, the Labour Court of the Canton of Geneva ordered [A.] to pay several amounts to [B.] in execution of an employment contract. On 2 August 2014, at the request of [B.], the Debt Collection Office of the Canton of Geneva notified [A.] of a payment order. On 9 February 2015, [B.] requested the continuation of the debt collection proceedings by way of seizure, in particular of A.'s assets held by Bank C. SA. On 18 August 2015, the Office sent the Bank a "notice concerning the seizure of a claim (Art. 99 DEBA)", declaring the seizure of the assets of the debtor being pursued. On 30 September 2015, the Office decided to maintain this provisional seizure, considering that the bank assets were not clearly allocated to specific public utility purposes that would have resulted in the immunity from enforcement alleged by A. On 4 February 2016, the Supervisory Authority for Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Offices of the Canton of Geneva dismissed A.'s complaint against this decision. [A.] then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, which declared his appeal inadmissible.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court first examined the admissibility of the appeal ex officio. It considered that the notice of 18 August 2015 sent to the Bank constituted a provisional security measure within the meaning of Art. 99 DEBA, and not a seizure as such. The decision of 30 September…