Invalidity of Assignments or Pledges of Wage Claims Made After July 1, 1991

Facts

Four debtors had assigned their wage claims to the company Kellfina Kellwa Finanz AG to secure loans. After the debtors no longer complied with their repayment obligations, the creditor notified the respective employers of the wage assignments. In the meantime, other creditors had seized the same debtors, which led to wage garnishments. The debt collection office of Basel-Stadt then set new garnishment quotas, taking into account the previous wage assignment quotas of Kellfina Kellwa Finanz AG. By letter dated June 13, 1991, the debt collection office informed the employers that, in accordance with the new Art. 325 CO that entered into force on July 1, 1991, the wage assignments had become void and could no longer be taken into account. It set a new, increased wage garnishment quota and requested the recipients to pay this increased amount to it from the July salary deduction. A copy of the letters was sent to Kellfina Kellwa Finanz AG, which protested to the employers concerned. By decisions of July 8, 1991, the debt collection office of Basel-Stadt confirmed to Kellfina Kellwa Finanz AG that it was maintaining its position that the full garnishable quota must now be paid to the office for the benefit of the pursuing creditors.

Considerations

1. The intertemporal question that arises is whether the wages due after July 1, 1991 are also covered by the prohibition on wage assignment, even though the assignment declaration was made before that date.

2. a) The supervisory authority of the debt collection and bankruptcy office of the canton of Basel-Stadt rightly considered that the legislator had not provided for a transitional regulation when revising Art. 325 CO and that, consequently, the provisions of the final title of the Swiss Civil Code, in particular Arts. 1 to 4, had to be applied. It considered that Art. 3 of the final title applied in this case, according to which legal relationships whose content is determined by law independently of the will of the parties must be judged according to the new law, even if they were established before its entry into force. It considered that the public interest took precedence over the protection of trust.

b) According to the appellant, the contested decision violates Art. 3 of the final title, which must be interpreted in accordance with the guarantee of property rights. It considers that the public interest has been overvalued compared to the right to protection of trust.

3. a) The appellant's arguments regarding the protection of trust and the guarantee…