Debtor's Objection to the Attachment Order

Facts

This case concerns a dispute between G. Caspar and M. Hoffmann, domiciled in Germany, and X. Jäggi, regarding an architectural contract. Caspar and Hoffmann acquired a 112-are plot of land in Solothurn through an exchange contract with the municipality of Solothurn, and undertook to entrust the architectural work to Jäggi. After informing Jäggi that they would assign these works to another person, Jäggi filed an action for declaratory judgment, performance, and, subsidiarily, damages against Caspar and Hoffmann with the Solothurn-Lebern court. Furthermore, Jäggi obtained an attachment order on the plot of land in question from the president of the same court, based on Art. 271(4) DEBA, for a claim of 350,000 francs. Caspar and Hoffmann filed an action for the release of the attachment, which they subsequently withdrew, as well as a public law appeal aimed at annulling the attachment order.

Considerations

The Federal Tribunal first examines whether the attachment order constitutes a final decision within the meaning of Art. 86(2) and 87 FJA. It concludes that the attachment is a purely enforcement-related security measure, distinct from the civil proceedings on the merits of the claim. The attachment order is therefore a final decision, and not a mere interlocutory judgment.

Regarding the admissibility of the public law appeal, the Federal Tribunal notes that previous case law considered the appeal inadmissible as long as the debtor had not exhausted the cantonal legal remedies, in particular the action to contest the attachment (Art. 279(2) DEBA).…