Notification by Edict in the Absence of Known Domicile of the Debtor

Facts

Upon request of a bank, the Debt Collection Office of Sarine has sequestered a claim of the debtor V. against a company, on the grounds that the debtor's domicile was unknown. The notification of the payment order and the sequestration order was made by edict on 26 February 1993. The representative of V. filed a complaint against this notification, alleging that the debtor was not without a known domicile at the time, having left for France. The Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Cantonal Tribunal of Fribourg dismissed the complaint, finding that on 26 February 1993, the debtor's domicile was not known, justifying notification by edict. Seized of an appeal, the Federal Tribunal dismissed it to the extent that it was admissible.

Considerations

The debt collection office is not required to search for the debtor's domicile, but must verify the information provided by the creditor, since its competence depends on it. Notification by edict should only be used as a last resort, after all research based on the factual situation has been undertaken to discover a possible notification address of the debtor.

In this case, the debt collection office of Sarine verified the information provided by the creditor, which indicated that the debtor was without a known domicile. It could in particular rely on a sequestration order issued by the Tribunal of Geneva against the debtor "without known domicile", as well as on the numerous…