Facts
In the bankruptcy of X., Bank Y. obtained a certificate of unpaid claims in the amount of CHF 197,715.65. Based on this certificate of unpaid claims, the Bank initiated enforcement proceedings with the Debt Collection Office of Basel-City, following which X. filed an objection. On August 26, 2008, the Civil Court of Basel-City found that X. had regained assets in the amount of CHF 13,400 within the framework of these enforcement proceedings and rejected the objection to that extent. Based on this judgment, the Bank requested the continuation of the enforcement proceedings up to the amount of CHF 13,400.
On February 26, 2009, the Debt Collection Office proceeded with the seizure of X.'s income within the framework of these enforcement proceedings, setting the debtor's minimum subsistence level at CHF 4,553 and seizing the portion of her income exceeding this amount, i.e., CHF 3,140 per month.
X. filed a complaint against this seizure, requesting that the amount seized from her salary be limited to CHF 1,116 per month, on the grounds that the seizure of the CHF 13,400 found to be new assets should be spread over the year of the salary seizure. The supervisory authority for the Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Office of Basel-City rejected this complaint.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal considers that the seizure carried out within the framework of the enforcement proceedings based on the certificate of unpaid claims from the bankruptcy should not be treated differently from a seizure carried out for another claim. When the judge has established the existence of new assets, the debtor must face it with all of their assets, and the Debt Collection Office must proceed with the seizure in accordance with Art. 92 et seq. DEBA, without any additional rules to be applied.
Although the doctrine criticizes the fact that the mere limitation of the enforceability of the claims…