Facts

Parties:

  • Appellant: [A. AG] , represented by attorneys Bruno Frick and/CO Marc Widmer
  • Respondent: [B. AG] , represented by attorney Mark Ineichen and/CO attorney Cyril Blattner
  • Debtor: [C.] , represented by attorney Dr. Sabine Burkhalter Kaimakliotis

Subject: Provisional enforcement

Enforcement: [A. AG] seeks to enforce a claim of CHF 729,070.53 plus interest at 5% since October 1, 2016. The claim is based on a bearer bond No. mmm of the Land Registry Emmental-Oberaargau dated March 31, 2010, in the amount of CHF 1,500,000.00, encumbering the properties [Y.] Gbbl-Nos. ooo, ppp, qqq, rrr, sss, ttt, uuu and VIO in the 3rd rank.

Proceedings:

  • The payment order was served to the debtor and [B. AG] , both raised objections.
  • The Regional Court Emmental-Oberaargau granted [A. AG] provisional enforcement for CHF 729,070.53 plus interest and the pledge on rental and lease income claims.
  • [B. AG] filed an appeal with the Higher Court of the Canton of Bern, which reduced the amount by CHF 250,000.-- to CHF 479,050.53.
  • [A. AG] filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court to obtain full provisional enforcement.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court first examines the admissibility of the appeal and finds that the statutory value in dispute threshold has been met and the appeal deadline has been observed. It dismisses the motion to consolidate the proceedings, as a unified assessment does not appear necessary.

In legal terms, the appellant complains that the Higher Court did not correctly interpret the acknowledgment of debt dated August 4, 2016. The Federal Supreme Court finds that the Higher Court did not violate the duty to state reasons, as the previous court's considerations show why provisional enforcement was denied in the amount of the penalty payment.

In…