Facts
On 13 March 1980, the Justice of the Peace of the Lausanne district ordered a seizure to the detriment of W. [F.] on his private vehicle, a Saab, under Article 271 ch. 5 DEBA. The debtor, born in 1916, suffers from polyneuritis in both legs and requires regular trips for medical treatments. His vehicle, equipped with an automatic transmission, is essential for these trips due to his state of health.
The debtor lodged a complaint against the execution of the seizure and requested that his vehicle be declared unsaleable. The President of the District Court of Lausanne dismissed him on 5 June 1980, a decision confirmed by the Court of Pursuits and Bankruptcies of the Cantonal Court of the canton of Vaud on 14 October 1980.
W. [F.] appealed to the Federal Court against the decision of the Court of Pursuits and Bankruptcies, requesting the annulment of the decision and the release of his vehicle from the seizure.
Considerations
The Chamber of Pursuits and Bankruptcies examined whether the debtor's private vehicle could be considered as a personal effect indispensable within the meaning of Article 92 ch. 1 DEBA. It recalled that personal effects are exempt from seizure only if they are indispensable to the debtor or his family, and that the law guarantees the debtor the possibility of leading a decent existence, but does not protect him against the loss of life's comforts.
However, the Chamber considered that the disabled person is in a particular situation that does not allow him to be subjected to the common rule without further examination. It estimated that the private vehicle can be considered as an auxiliary means indispensable to a disabled person, particularly when…