Facts
The [A. AG] (appellant) applied to the Cantonal Court of Schaffhausen for restoration of the appeal period against the ruling of the Cantonal Court of 7 January 2016, by which [A. AG] was dissolved due to organizational deficiencies and the liquidation of its assets was ordered in accordance with the provisions on bankruptcy. The Higher Court of the Canton of Schaffhausen rejected the application for restoration of the appeal period. The appellant requests the Federal Court to overturn the ruling of the Higher Court and grant the application for restoration of the appeal period.
The appellant had not appealed the first-instance ruling, but had only applied for restoration of the appeal period. The lower court rejected the application and thereby terminated the proceedings. The appellant complains of an obviously incorrect establishment of the facts and a violation of Art. 136 and Art. 148 CPC.
Considerations
The Federal Court examines ex officio and with free cognition whether a remedy is admissible. The appellant had not appealed the first-instance ruling, but had only applied for restoration of the appeal period. With the contested ruling, the lower court rejected this application and thereby terminated the proceedings. There is therefore a final ruling within the meaning of Art. 90 FSCA.
The appellant complains that the lower court's consideration, according to which the service of the first-instance ruling on a business employee of the domicile holder [B. AG] was legally sufficient, constitutes an obviously incorrect establishment of the facts and a violation of Art. 136 and Art. 148 CPC. However, the lower court rightly assumed that the service of the first-instance ruling could in principle be made validly to [B. AG] .
The appellant cannot be heard to say that the…