Key legal question
Whether the complaint against the pledge notice was admissible despite the debtor's failure to challenge the underlying claim by opposition and without substantive engagement with the supervisory decision.
Extracted holding
The complaint was inadmissible because it did not address the decisive reasoning of the challenged decision; the merits of the claim could no longer be reviewed in the pledge proceedings.
Extracted reasoning
Since no opposition had been raised, continuation of enforcement and the pledge notice were procedurally proper. The debtor could no longer contest the debt in the enforcement stage and was limited to an action under Art. 85a SchKG.