June 22, 2024

LAWNEWS

SchKG 250 para 2; loco 38; IPRG 148 para 1

facts

On September 3, 2019, the Zurich District Court declared bankruptcy against S. The Altstetten-Zürich bankruptcy office published the table of claims on January 15, 2020. A. Bank B was admitted as another creditor with a third class claim of CHF 437,466.80 pursuant to the judgment of 10 July 2013 by the English Northampton County Court. …

On February 5, 2020, A .__________ filed a (negative) claim against Bank B .________ in the Zurich District Court pursuant to Article 250 para 2 SchKG and requested that their claim be deleted from the claims table. In a judgment dated July 13, 2020, the District Court dismissed the claim in the Schedule of Claims; Bank B’s claim acceptance is confirmed in the claims table. …

stabbed a. With a judgment issued on December 30, 2020, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal and affirmed the judgment issued in the first instance. …

With a submission dated February 8, 2021, A.S. _________ a complaint in civil matters. The complainant requests that the Supreme Court’s ruling be set aside. In this matter, he demands that the claim made by Bank B. ________ (the defendant) be deleted and approved by the Bankruptcy Department in Bankruptcy Claims Schedule C. … »

Federal Court Considerations

According to the Federal Supreme Court (BGer), the plaintiff can take the place of the debtor in the passive collection process Raising the objection to the statute of limitations retroactively against a foreign ruling:

  • Application of the law of the country that issued the judgment
    • the lapse by statute of limitations One Financial supportspecified in the ruling
      • Depends on the law of the sentencing state
        • Regardless of
          • Whether it is a foreign – here English – law, the statute of limitations is either substantive or procedural in nature.
  • Creditor boycott actions
    • The English ruling of July 10, 2013 became enforceable on the same day, which is why the six-year statute of limitations ran until July 10, 2019.
  • comply with applicable English law
    • On November 27, 2018, B. An application to open a legal right, which was within the deadline under English law.
See also  The consultations between the European Union and Great Britain are inconclusive

A could not be heard. , as long as he complained that the 6-year statute of limitations was not respected when filing the legal case:

  • Under English law, the lawsuit interrupted the statute of limitations.

Conclusion:

A claim entered in a C corporation bankruptcy case was not prohibited by law and so the lower court could not be accused of violating federal law.

So the federal court had to dismiss the appeal.

Federal Court decision

  1. The complaint is dismissed to the extent that it can be disposed of.
  2. The complainant was charged court costs of 6,000 francs.
  3. The Complainant shall compensate the Defendant for the Federal Court proceedings in the amount of CHF 6,500.
  4. This judgment shall be communicated to the parties and to the Supreme Court of the Canton of Zurich, Civil Chamber I.

BGer 5A_110 / 2021 from 02.08.2022 = BGE 148 III 420 et seq.

additional information

source

LawMedia Editorial Team