Facts
Company X. AG was sued by Z. before the Zug district court. On July 13, 2011, Z. requested a provisional lifting of opposition order. On July 15, 2011, the judge invited company X. AG to respond in writing within a period of seven days. Company X. AG responded on August 17, 2011, but its response was considered late. The judge rejected company X. AG's request for an additional deadline and granted the provisional lifting of opposition.
Company X. AG appealed to the Zug cantonal court, which dismissed its appeal. Company X. AG then filed a civil law appeal with the Federal Court.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined whether the first-instance judge had violated federal law by refusing to grant company X. AG an additional deadline to respond to the request for lifting of opposition. The Federal Court considered that the lifting of opposition procedure is a summary procedure aimed at accelerating the procedure.
The Federal Court analyzed the provisions of the Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (DEBA) and the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). It considered that Article 223 CPC, which provides for the possibility of granting an additional deadline in case of late response, does not apply to summary procedures.
The Federal Court also examined the case law and doctrine on the issue. It considered…