Facts
This decision concerns a dispute between X. (the claimant) and Y. (the defendant) regarding enforcement proceedings for the provision of securities. The claimant argued that he had been misled about the amount of the acknowledged debt and that he was in error on the essential grounds, so that there was no obligation to pay or to provide securities. He therefore filed an action for debt release. The cantonal court and the Federal Tribunal rejected the claimant's request. They considered that the allegations of deception or error on the essential grounds were not manifestly well-founded and that, in the context of enforcement proceedings for the provision of securities, the debtor must provide the requested securities, even in the event of a dispute over the existence or amount of the main claim. The dispute over the validity of the acknowledgment of debt must be definitively settled before the debtor can be released from his obligation to provide the securities.Considerations
The Court first recalled that the enforcement proceedings for the provision of securities follow the same rules as the enforcement proceedings for payment, with the difference that only special enforcement is possible. The acknowledgment of debt leads to the granting of provisional release from attachment, without the claim being definitively adjudicated on the merits.
The Court then considered that the debtor can assert all defenses against the obligation to provide the securities, including the alleged non-existence of the claim to be secured or defects in consent. However, as long as there is no final decision on the existence of the claim, the obligation to provide the securities remains. Only a manifest…