Inadmissibility of the appeal for lack of reasoning against a seizure not yet carried out and the debtor's departure abroad

Facts

The appellant, a judgment debtor, is the subject of several enforcement proceedings brought by a public limited company ([B. AG] ), by the Swiss Confederation and by the State of the Canton of Ticino. The Lugano Debt Enforcement Office issued the notices of seizure between 17 and 30 August 2018.

By judgment of 23 April 2019, the Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Ticino, acting as supervisory authority, dismissed the debtor's appeal against the notices of seizure, to the extent it was admissible. The cantonal court held that the complaints against the seizure were moot, as the seizure had not yet been carried out. As to the request to annul the notice in the enforcement brought by the creditor company, the authority dismissed it because the latter had produced, with its request for continuation, the proposed judgment of the Justice of the Peace of the Lugano East Circle of 20 June 2018, which ordered the debtor to pay CHF 4'403.-- plus interest and costs, and against which the objection had been finally dismissed. Finally, the debtor's departure abroad, notified on 4 October 2018, did not affect the validity of the enforcement proceedings, since the notices had been served on her earlier (Art. 53 DEBA).

By civil law appeal of 16 May 2019, the debtor challenged the judgment before the Federal Supreme Court, requesting its annulment. No observations were requested.

The Federal Supreme Court examined the appeal under the simplified procedure.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court recalls that the appeal brief must contain conclusions and grounds, and that the appellant must set out in a concise manner, engaging with the considerations of the contested judgment, why it violates the law (Art. 42 para. 1 and 2 FSCA). For violations of fundamental rights and of cantonal and intercantonal law, the requirements of reasoning are stricter: it is necessary to indicate the rights infringed and to explain, with precise and specific argumentation, in what the violation consists (Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA).

In the case at hand, the appellant complains of the violation of Art. 53 and 80 DEBA, 9, 29 and 30 Cst. and 6 ECHR. She reiterates the objection of territorial incompetence arising from her move abroad and…