Pursuit for provision of securities and competence of the Debt Collection Office

Facts

On 24 December 1982, the Lausanne Customs Directorate issued a security requisition against Mrs. B. under art. 123 of the Customs Act (CustA). The decision of 24 December 1982 required Mrs. B. to provide securities for an amount of 100,000.-- francs. On 7 July 1983, the Customs Directorate requested the Neuchâtel seizure authority to order the seizure, at the Swiss Credit in Neuchâtel, of the defendant's securities deposit No. 7637, amounting to 83,009.-- francs, and of the private account No. 7637-00, amounting to 2,227.-- francs, with interest and subsequent payments on these accounts.

On 13 July 1983, the Customs Directorate validated the said seizure by initiating a pursuit for provision of securities against Mrs. B. The second payment order, established following an error by the Neuchâtel Debt Collection Office, was met with total opposition upon notification on 12 September 1983; however, the defendant subsequently withdrew her opposition, allowing the plaintiff to request continuation of the pursuit on 27 October 1983.

The Office executed the seizure on 8 November 1983, making it applicable to the seized objects. The plaintiff having requested the sale, the Office informed the parties on 24 January 1984 that it would order the Swiss Credit to send the available amount from the private account, and proceed, up to the due amount, with the realization of the securities, the proceeds of which would be deposited at the Neuchâtel Cantonal Bank.

Considerations

The Chamber of Debt Collection and Bankruptcy of the Federal Tribunal examined the question of whether the Debt Collection Office can waive the realization of seized assets and the consignment of their proceeds, and whether it can accept securities in kind instead of the proceeds of the realization of seized assets, without the agreement of the plaintiff.

The Court considered that, in a pursuit for provision of securities, the Office cannot rule on the question of whether the securities provided by the defendant are sufficient to justify the termination of the pursuit. This question falls…