Facts
The dispute concerned the valuation of a painting attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, seized in the context of enforcement proceedings for the realization of chattel collateral initiated by [A.] against B. According to the expert opinion of Professor X., a specialist in art history, the painting was not an original work by Leonardo da Vinci, but a heavily restored copy in very poor condition. Professor X. estimated the value of the painting at CHF 15,000. The Debt Enforcement Office (LP) set the realization value at this amount. At the auction, the painting was sold for CHF 30,000.
[A.] contested the costs of the expert opinion, arguing that they were too high. The cantonal supervisory authority upheld his complaint, considering that the Debt Enforcement Office should have limited the expert opinion of Professor X. given the conclusions of the report by the SIK (Swiss Institute for Art Studies) which already strongly questioned the authenticity of the painting. The Debt Enforcement Office appealed against this decision.
Considerations
The Federal Court considers that the Debt Enforcement Office could not, solely on the basis of the SIK report which only raised a presumption, definitively conclude that the painting was inauthentic or estimate its value. However, it considers that the Office should have questioned the disproportionate costs that a comprehensive expert opinion would represent, given the deplorable condition of the painting.
The Court rules that the Office should have, before mandating Professor X. for a…