Facts
On 28 August 1991, the Debt Collection Office of the City of Zug received two debt collection requests from the Cantonal Tax Administration of Zug against F. and against Z. The Debt Collection Office rejected both requests because they did not bear the signature of the creditor. The Cantonal Tax Administration then filed a complaint with the Justice Commission of the Superior Court of Zug, as the supervisory authority for debt collection and bankruptcy. The Justice Commission upheld the complaint and cancelled the billing of costs by the Debt Collection Office. The Debt Collection Office of the City of Zug then appealed to the Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the annulment of the judgment of the Justice Commission and the maintenance of its rejection decisions, as well as the charging of the Cantonal Tax Administration for the costs according to invoice no. 0961. The Cantonal Tax Administration wishes the contested judgment to be confirmed, and refers to the subsequent printing of the surname and initial of the first name of its authorized signatory on its debt collection requests and continuations.Considerations
1. The appeal against the decision of a supervisory authority under Arts. 18 and 19 DEBA is in principle open to the party whose rights have been infringed, i.e. the appellant or the respondent depending on the outcome of the proceedings. However, the Debt Collection Office is also entitled to appeal when the decision affects its own material or personal interests or those of the canton it represents. 2. Neither the DEBA nor Ordinance 1 of the Federal Council on the DEBA specify whether the debt collection request must be signed. Doctrine expressly requires the signature of the debt collection request. 3. The signature is an integral part of the written form required in various areas of law, in order to identify the person of the author and to recognize the recorded content. 4. Debt collection law,…