Facts
In the context of enforcement proceedings initiated by B. against C., the creditor contested before the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Appeal of the Canton of Ticino, as the supervisory authority, the attachment carried out by the Lugano Debt Collection Office, which resulted in a provisional certificate of lack of assets within the meaning of Art. 115 DEBA. During the appeal proceedings, the president of the authority seized ordered the Bank X. by decision of January 7, 2003, to produce within a period of twenty days an account statement for the years 2000-2002 for each relationship in the name of the debtor, including the one relating to a numbered account reported by the creditor, or of which he is the beneficial owner, as well as a declaration on the possible existence of safe deposit boxes in his name.Considerations
Bank X. contested this decision, arguing that the notion of beneficial owner is foreign to civil law and that the Debt Collection Office must be limited to seizing assets of which the debtor is undisputedly the owner. However, the Federal Tribunal has already had the opportunity to indicate that all assets of which the deceased is the beneficial owner may be subject to precautionary measures for the purpose of a petition of inheritance. Furthermore, the case law has resolved the contradiction between banking secrecy and the bank's duty to provide information in favor of the latter.
The bank also argued that the supervisory authority had violated its territorial jurisdiction by requesting information on assets relating to banking relationships outside the Canton of Ticino. However, the Federal Tribunal considers that the request for information was issued by the competent supervisory authority and transmitted to the legal department of the appellant bank in the Canton of Ticino, without any violation of the principle of territoriality.
Finally, the bank argued that…