Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 22.10.2025, 9C_435/2025
Facts
A taxpayer (the appellant) was served with a payment order for a 2013 direct federal tax debt. He filed a total objection to the order. On March 21, 2024, he initiated an action to set aside the debt enforcement proceedings under Art. 85a of the Federal Act on Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy (DEBA). His request was rejected in the first instance.
On October 21, 2024, he appealed this judgment to the Valais Cantonal Court. In parallel, the creditor (the State of Valais) obtained the definitive lifting of the objection, and the enforcement proceedings continued. The appellant sent several letters to the Cantonal Court, and on June 18, 2025, he complained of a lack of diligence. On August 8, 2025, he filed a complaint for denial of justice, which was forwarded to the Federal Supreme Court. The Cantonal Court subsequently informed the Federal Supreme Court that it planned to rule on the appeal in November or December 2025.
Legal Principles
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the conditions for an appeal based on denial of justice (Art. 94 of the Federal Supreme Court Act). Such an appeal is admissible if an authority unjustifiably delays rendering a decision subject to appeal, and the party has unsuccessfully requested it to rule. The path of appeal is determined by the underlying dispute.
The right to be tried within a reasonable time (Art. 29 para. 1 of the Constitution) is assessed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties, and the stakes of the dispute. An authority's workload does not justify a delay.
The action under Art. 85a DEBA allows a debtor to have the non-existence of a debt established. For public law claims such as taxes, the civil judge may only rule on aspects related to debt enforcement law (cancellation or suspension of enforcement), but not on the existence of the tax claim itself, which falls under the jurisdiction of administrative authorities. Filing this action does not automatically suspend enforcement proceedings.
Application to the Case
The Federal Supreme Court declares itself competent to rule on the denial of justice, as the underlying case concerns direct federal tax, a matter of public law for which an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court would be available.
The appellant accuses the Cantonal Court of inaction for over nine months, particularly between February and June 2025. The Federal Supreme Court analyzes the duration of the proceedings and finds it is not excessive. It notes that a period of less than four months between two procedural steps is not unreasonable. Furthermore, although the case is not highly complex, it requires the analysis of several tax documents, including tax assessments from two different cantons and a revision procedure. The Federal Supreme Court also notes that the complaint for denial of justice was filed during the judicial recess.
The Federal Supreme Court finds that the Cantonal Court's announcement that it will render its decision in November or December 2025 is a sufficient guarantee of compliance with the principle of procedural speed.
The appellant's other grievances are dismissed:
- The lack of suspension of the enforcement proceedings is irrelevant to judging the delay in ruling and has already been decided by a previous Federal Supreme Court judgment.
- The fact that the creditor was able to obtain the lifting of the objection in parallel is in accordance with the law.
- Arguments regarding the merits of the tax claim cannot be examined within the framework of an appeal for denial of justice.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal for denial of justice. The court costs, set at 2,000 CHF, are charged to the appellant.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
