Facts
The Federal Tribunal has been seized of an appeal against a decision of the cantonal supervisory authority in debt enforcement and bankruptcy matters. The administrator of the ordinary composition agreement contested the decision that had ruled that the claim for criminal proceedings costs to be borne by the debtor did not fall within the scope of the judicial composition agreement and had to be paid in full. The Federal Tribunal does not enter into the merits of the appeal, considering that the administrator of the ordinary composition agreement does not have standing to appeal. Indeed, when the existence or the time of the creation of a claim is disputed, the composition agreement administrator cannot rule on this issue by a decision subject to appeal under Art. 17 DEBA. The competence to settle this dispute belongs to the civil court or the competent court on the merits. Furthermore, the supervisory authority also does not have the competence to decide whether a claim has been incurred with the agreement of the composition commissioner since the publication of the composition moratorium, in accordance with Art. 310(1) DEBA. Finally, the fact that the full payment of the canton's claim could jeopardize the 6% composition dividend does not confer on the composition agreement administrator the standing to appeal.Considerations
According to case law and doctrine, the debtor who has been granted a composition agreement with a dividend does not lose his capacity to incur or be bound by obligations. The debts he contracts after the confirmation of the composition agreement do not participate in this particular form of enforcement: the creditors…