-
- Art. 5a FC
- Art. 6 FC
- Art. 10 FC
- Art. 16 FC
- Art. 17 FC
- Art. 20 FC
- Art. 22 FC
- Art. 29a FC
- Art. 30 FC
- Art. 32 FC
- Art. 42 FC
- Art. 43 FC
- Art. 43a FC
- Art. 55 FC
- Art. 56 FC
- Art. 60 FC
- Art. 68 FC
- Art. 75b FC
- Art. 77 FC
- Art. 96 para. 2 lit. a FC
- Art. 110 FC
- Art. 117a FC
- Art. 118 FC
- Art. 123b FC
- Art. 136 FC
- Art. 166 FC
-
- Art. 11 CO
- Art. 12 CO
- Art. 50 CO
- Art. 51 CO
- Art. 84 CO
- Art. 143 CO
- Art. 144 CO
- Art. 145 CO
- Art. 146 CO
- Art. 147 CO
- Art. 148 CO
- Art. 149 CO
- Art. 150 CO
- Art. 701 CO
- Art. 715 CO
- Art. 715a CO
- Art. 734f CO
- Art. 785 CO
- Art. 786 CO
- Art. 787 CO
- Art. 788 CO
- Transitional provisions to the revision of the Stock Corporation Act of June 19, 2020
- Art. 808c CO
-
- Art. 2 PRA
- Art. 3 PRA
- Art. 4 PRA
- Art. 6 PRA
- Art. 10 PRA
- Art. 10a PRA
- Art. 11 PRA
- Art. 12 PRA
- Art. 13 PRA
- Art. 14 PRA
- Art. 15 PRA
- Art. 16 PRA
- Art. 17 PRA
- Art. 19 PRA
- Art. 20 PRA
- Art. 21 PRA
- Art. 22 PRA
- Art. 23 PRA
- Art. 24 PRA
- Art. 25 PRA
- Art. 26 PRA
- Art. 27 PRA
- Art. 29 PRA
- Art. 30 PRA
- Art. 31 PRA
- Art. 32 PRA
- Art. 32a PRA
- Art. 33 PRA
- Art. 34 PRA
- Art. 35 PRA
- Art. 36 PRA
- Art. 37 PRA
- Art. 38 PRA
- Art. 39 PRA
- Art. 40 PRA
- Art. 41 PRA
- Art. 42 PRA
- Art. 43 PRA
- Art. 44 PRA
- Art. 45 PRA
- Art. 46 PRA
- Art. 47 PRA
- Art. 48 PRA
- Art. 49 PRA
- Art. 50 PRA
- Art. 51 PRA
- Art. 52 PRA
- Art. 53 PRA
- Art. 54 PRA
- Art. 55 PRA
- Art. 56 PRA
- Art. 57 PRA
- Art. 58 PRA
- Art. 59a PRA
- Art. 59b PRA
- Art. 59c PRA
- Art. 62 PRA
- Art. 63 PRA
- Art. 67 PRA
- Art. 67a PRA
- Art. 67b PRA
- Art. 75 PRA
- Art. 75a PRA
- Art. 76 PRA
- Art. 76a PRA
- Art. 90 PRA
-
- Vorb. zu Art. 1 FADP
- Art. 1 FADP
- Art. 2 FADP
- Art. 3 FADP
- Art. 5 lit. f und g FADP
- Art. 6 Abs. 6 and 7 FADP
- Art. 7 FADP
- Art. 10 FADP
- Art. 11 FADP
- Art. 12 FADP
- Art. 14 FADP
- Art. 15 FADP
- Art. 19 FADP
- Art. 20 FADP
- Art. 22 FADP
- Art. 23 FADP
- Art. 25 FADP
- Art. 26 FADP
- Art. 27 FADP
- Art. 31 para. 2 lit. e FADP
- Art. 33 FADP
- Art. 34 FADP
- Art. 35 FADP
- Art. 38 FADP
- Art. 39 FADP
- Art. 40 FADP
- Art. 41 FADP
- Art. 42 FADP
- Art. 43 FADP
- Art. 44 FADP
- Art. 44a FADP
- Art. 45 FADP
- Art. 46 FADP
- Art. 47 FADP
- Art. 47a FADP
- Art. 48 FADP
- Art. 49 FADP
- Art. 50 FADP
- Art. 51 FADP
- Art. 54 FADP
- Art. 57 FADP
- Art. 58 FADP
- Art. 60 FADP
- Art. 61 FADP
- Art. 62 FADP
- Art. 63 FADP
- Art. 64 FADP
- Art. 65 FADP
- Art. 66 FADP
- Art. 67 FADP
- Art. 69 FADP
- Art. 72 FADP
- Art. 72a FADP
-
- Art. 2 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 3 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 4 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 5 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 6 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 7 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 8 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 9 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 11 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 12 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 25 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 29 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 32 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 33 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 34 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
CODE OF OBLIGATIONS
FEDERAL LAW ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
LUGANO CONVENTION
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
FEDERAL ACT ON POLITICAL RIGHTS
CIVIL CODE
FEDERAL ACT ON CARTELS AND OTHER RESTRAINTS OF COMPETITION
FEDERAL ACT ON INTERNATIONAL MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
DEBT ENFORCEMENT AND BANKRUPTCY ACT
FEDERAL ACT ON DATA PROTECTION
SWISS CRIMINAL CODE
CYBERCRIME CONVENTION
- I. Overview
- II. Debt enforcement for realization of pledge
- III. Application for debt enforcement (para. 1)
- IV. Duty to notify in the event of subsequent pledging (para. 2)
- Bibliography
I. Overview
1 The SchKG recognizes two types of special execution: debt enforcement for attachment (Art. 89 et seq. SchKG; main form) and debt enforcement for realization of a pledge (special form). The latter is dealt with in Art. 151-158 SchKG. These provisions apply if the monetary claim to be enforced is secured by a pledge within the meaning of Art. 37 SchKG (see para. 5 et seq.) (see Art. 151 para. 1 SchKG).
2 The initiation and continuation proceedings in debt enforcement proceedings for the realization of a pledge largely coincide with the ordinary initiation proceedings and the continuation proceedings in debt enforcement proceedings for attachment. Art. 151 et seq. SchKG, however, contain a number of special features that must be observed in debt enforcement proceedings for the realization of liens (see Art. 87 SchKG). These are briefly explained below as a general preliminary remark to Art. 151 et seq. SchKG - are briefly explained (N. 3 et seq.). This is followed by an explanation of the special features in connection with the application for debt enforcement (Art. 151 para. 1 SchKG; Nos. 20 et seq.) and the duty of notification in the event of subsequent pledging (Art. 151 para. 2 SchKG; Nos. 43 et seq.).
II. Debt enforcement for realization of pledge
A. Scope of application
1. Preliminary remarks
3 Pledge enforcement is a special form of special execution and has a limited (material) scope of application: a claim secured by a pledge is required in order to carry out enforcement for pledge realization (hereinafter N. 5 et seq.). However, this does not mean that if there is a claim secured by a pledge, debt enforcement for realization of the pledge must always be carried out. However, due to Art. 41 SchKG (beneficium excussionis realis), this type of debt enforcement is the main focus in the case of claims secured by lien (see N. 8 et seq. below).
4 Local scope of application: A place of enforcement in Switzerland is required for the enforcement of a pledge (territoriality principle). Art. 51 SchKG is relevant for determining the place of debt enforcement:
In the case of claims secured by a lien on real property, debt enforcement takes place at the place where the property is located (Art. 51 para. 2 SchKG); debt enforcement for realization of a lien on real property is thus only possible if the property is located in Switzerland (cf. Art. 1 para. 1 VZG).
In the case of claims secured by a pledge, the creditor can choose between the place where the property is located and the general places of debt enforcement pursuant to Art. 46 et seq. of the SchKG (Art. 51 para. 1 SchKG). As long as a general place of debt enforcement pursuant to Art. 46 et seq. SchKG exists in Switzerland, it is not decisive for the raising of the debt enforcement proceedings whether the pledged asset is located in Switzerland or not; the pledged asset must first be brought to Switzerland for realization.
2. In detail
a. Claim secured by pledge
5 In order for debt enforcement proceedings for the realization of a pledge to be conducted, "a claim secured by a pledge (Art. 37 [SchKG])" is required (Art. 151 para. 1 and Art. 41 para. 1 SchKG). A claim is therefore required on the one hand (N. 7) and on the other hand its security by a pledge (N. 6). The following must be stated in this regard:
6 (i) The procedure for the realization of a pledge presupposes first of all that a lien exists. Liens are limited rights in rem in the form of security and realization rights. Liens have their legal basis in the CC; nevertheless, the SchKG recognizes an independent concept of lien that is broader than that in civil law. The term "pledge" within the meaning of the SchKG includes both mortgages and liens (Art. 37 para. 3 SchKG). The terms "security right over real property" and "pledge" are defined in Art. 37 para. 1 and 2 SchKG. Mortgages include in particular the mortgage bond (Art. 824 et seq. CC) and the mortgage note (Art. 842 et seq. CC); liens include - in addition to the pledge (Art. 884 CC) - in particular the lien on claims and other rights (Art. 899 et seq. CC) as well as the various rights of retention. There are also other "liens" that are covered by Art. 37 SchKG; these are excluded below and reference is made to the relevant specialist literature. Four further points should be made:
According to case law and the vast majority of doctrine, transfer of ownership by way of security and assignment by way of security are not liens within the meaning of Art. 37 SchKG.
Even if book-entry securities are not expressly mentioned in Art. 37 SchKG, liens on book-entry securities can also be enforced by means of debt enforcement for the realization of the lien; however, the normal legal case provides for the private realization of book-entry securities (Art. 31 BEG).
Art. 92 SchKG contains a list of assets that cannot be seized. However, this provision only applies to debt enforcement proceedings for seizure. Assets that cannot be seized may therefore be ordered as a pledge in debt enforcement proceedings for the realization of a pledge and realized accordingly.
The scope of the lien (to be distinguished from the scope of the security; see N. 7) determines the question of which objects/claims form the basis of the lien and can therefore be realized in the event of the debtor's default. In the case of mortgages, the scope of the lien is determined in accordance with Art. 805 et seq. CC: In addition to the property, the mortgage also includes all components and appurtenances (Art. 805 para. 1 CC). Any disputes regarding the status of components and appurtenances must be settled in the encumbrance settlement proceedings (Art. 140 SchKG) (Art. 11 para. 4 VZG; see also Art. 38 para. 2 VZG in conjunction with Art. 102 VZG). In the case of rented/leased properties, the lien extends to the rent/leasehold interest claim "that has accrued since the commencement of proceedings for the realization of the mortgage or since the opening of bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor until realization" (Art. 806 para. 1 CC); provided, however, that the lienor explicitly requests the extension of the lien in the debt enforcement proceedings (Art. 152 para. 2 SchKG; on the rent/leasehold block OK-Paydar, Art. 152 SchKG N. 23 et seq.). The scope of the lien is regulated in Art. 892 CC: In addition to the pledged property, both the appurtenances and the fruits that are part of the pledged property at the time of the realization of the pledge are subject to the lien (Art. 892 para. 1 and 3 CC). In the case of liens on claims with recurring ancillary benefits (e.g. interest), only the current claim is deemed to be pledged, but not the benefits that have already lapsed (Art. 904 para. 1 CC; see, however, the exception in Art. 904 para. 2 CC).
7 (ii) The secured claim may be a claim under private or public law. The scope of the security - i.e. for which claims and any additional costs the lien grants security - varies depending on the lien. The following is a (non-exhaustive) overview of the scope of security provided by various liens that are relevant in practice:
Lien of pledge: This provides the creditor with "security for the claim, including contractual interest, collection costs and default interest" (Art. 891 para. 2 CC). With regard to contractual interest, there is no time limit (unlike with security rights over real property; Art. 818 para. 1 no. 3 CC.); accordingly, the pledge is liable for all contractual interest that is still outstanding at the time of realization. Art. 891 para. 2 CC is of a dispositive nature; the parties can therefore extend or limit the scope of the security.
In the case of liens on claims (see Art. 899 para. 2 CC) and retention rights pursuant to Art. 895 et seq. CC, the scope of the security is also assessed in accordance with Art. 891 para. 2 CC (see above).
Landlord's right of retention: In the case of commercial leases, the landlord has a special right of retention to secure its claims (Art. 268 et seq. CO; Art. 283 et seq. SchKG). This right of retention secures not only the rent claims (net rent and ancillary costs), but also the debt collection and retention costs (including legal costs). However, security payments provided for in the rental agreement or pure claims for damages by the landlord are not covered by the right of retention.
Mortgages with a fixed amount (capital mortgages; Art. 794 para. 1 CC) grant the creditor security for the capital claim, the costs of enforcement, default interest as well as three years' interest that has expired at the time of the application for enforcement of the lien and the current interest since the last interest payment date (Art. 818 para. 1 CC; cf. in cases of legal standstill additionally Art. 57b para. 1 SchKG). In addition to the capital sum entered in the land register, the capital mortgage also offers the creditor security for certain ancillary claims. If the exact amount of the claim is not determined - i.e. in the case of a maximum mortgage - Art. 818 CC does not apply. In this case, the parties must specify a maximum amount in the land register "up to which the property is liable for all claims of the creditor" (Art. 794 para. 2 CC). As a result, interest and other costs are only secured by lien within the maximum amount entered in the land register; the extension of the lien to ancillary claims (as defined in Art. 818 CC) is excluded.
In principle, Art. 818 CC also applies to mortgage notes (Art. 842 et seq. CC) (see above). Particular attention must be paid to the last sub-clause of Art. 818 para. 1 no. 3 CC: According to this, only the interest actually owed on the mortgage note is secured by a lien. This sub-clause was introduced by the legislator as part of the revision of the law on mortgage notes; however, it is (or was) unclear whether these provisions refer to the interest from the mortgage note claim or from the claim from the underlying relationship. According to the Federal Supreme Court, Art. 818 para. 1 no. 3 CC refers to the interest from the debt certificate claim, whereby the creditor can only claim this interest for the interest still outstanding from the basic claim.
In the case of statutory mortgages, the scope of the security is assessed in accordance with Art. 818 CC (see above), unless a special rule applies. This standard applies in particular to the practically relevant builder's lien (Art. 837 para. 1 no. 3 CC). However, the following should be added: In order to enforce a lien, the builder's lien must be definitively entered in the land register. In the case of a provisional entry (priority notice; Art. 76 para. 3 GBV and Art. 961 para. 1 no. 1 CC), the only recourse is ordinary enforcement for attachment or bankruptcy.
b. Priority of enforcement for realization of the pledge
8 Claims secured by a pledge are generally subject to enforcement for realization of the pledge. This applies regardless of whether the debtor is subject to bankruptcy proceedings or not (Art. 41 para. 1 SchKG).
9 Although the debt enforcement office determines the type of debt enforcement proceedings (Art. 38 para. 3 SchKG), debt enforcement proceedings for the realization of pledges are generally only initiated at the request of the creditor (but see n. 23). The debt enforcement office is bound by this request; if it nevertheless carries out debt enforcement proceedings for seizure or bankruptcy, the debtor can defend itself by means of an appeal (Art. 17 SchKG) and demand the debt enforcement proceedings for realization of the pledge.
10 If the creditor initiates debt enforcement proceedings for seizure or bankruptcy despite the claim secured by a lien, the debtor can raise the substantive defense of beneficium excussionis realis (defense of advance realization) and thus enforce the debt enforcement proceedings for realization of the lien (Art. 41 para. 1bis SchKG). The debtor asserts the objection by means of a SchKG appeal; the appeal period is ten days from service of the payment order (Art. 17 SchKG). If the debtor fails to meet this deadline, he can no longer contest the debt enforcement proceedings for attachment or bankruptcy at a later date.
11 The (de facto) priority of the enforcement of liens for claims secured by liens contained in Art. 41 para. 1bis SchKG is subject to various exceptions, i.e. the debtor cannot raise the plea of beneficium excussionis realis in the following cases:
In the case of interest and annuities secured by a lien on real property, the creditor has the option of choosing between enforcement for realization of the lien and enforcement for attachment or bankruptcy (Art. 41 para. 2 SchKG).
The creditor also has the choice between enforcement of the pledge and enforcement of the bill (Art. 41 para. 2 and Art. 177 para. 1 SchKG).
If the creditor waives the lien in statutory form and the debtor is notified of this with the payment order at the latest, the debtor cannot raise the plea of beneficium excussionis realis. In the case of a mortgage, the waiver only becomes effective upon deletion from the land register (Art. 801 CC). In the case of a security right over real property, the unilateral waiver of the security right over real property by the creditor is sufficient; a return pursuant to Art. 889 para. 1 CC is not required to exclude the defense.
It is also possible for the creditor and the debtor to contractually exclude the plea of beneficium excussionis realis; this can be done before or after the debt enforcement proceedings have been raised. The parties are not bound by any form (Art. 11 para. 1 CO); however, the written form is recommended, as an oral or implied waiver of the defense is difficult to prove.
Finally, the parties can agree on private realization (by selling or entering the property themselves) (see Art. 890 para. 2 CC), which also excludes the objection of prior realization. However, if the debtor goes bankrupt or the pledged property has been seized or arrested, the pledgee cannot (or can no longer) exercise her right to private realization. Furthermore, agreements under which the creditor is to acquire ownership of the pledged property - without debt enforcement - are null and void (so-called forfeiture agreements; Art. 816 para. 2 and Art. 894 CC); this raises difficult questions of demarcation from the (generally permissible) agreement of self-enforcement.
12 In principle, the opening of bankruptcy proceedings leads to the cancellation of debt enforcement proceedings pending against the debtor (Art. 206 para. 1 SchKG). However, this only applies to debt enforcement proceedings against a debtor who is also the owner of the pledge; if a third party has created the pledge (third-party pledge relationship), the debtor's debt enforcement proceedings to realize the pledge can be continued even if bankruptcy proceedings have been opened against the debtor (Art. 89 para. 1 VZG).
B. Procedure
13 The initiation and continuation proceedings in debt enforcement proceedings for the realization of liens are largely the same as the ordinary initiation proceedings and the continuation proceedings in debt enforcement proceedings for attachment. Nevertheless, the SchKG contains in Art. 151 et seq. SchKG and elsewhere, the SchKG contains various (special) provisions relating to the enforcement of liens. The procedure and its special features are summarized below:
14 (i) The creditor initiates the debt enforcement proceedings by submitting a debt enforcement request to the competent debt enforcement office (Art. 51 SchKG; see N. 4). The content of this request is primarily determined in accordance with Art. 67 SchKG. Further information is also required for the debt enforcement for realization of the pledge (Art. 67 para. 2 SchKG): For example, the debtor must provide information about any third-party lien holders and indicate the use of the attached property as a family home/shared residence (Art. 151 para. 1 SchKG; see N. 26 et seq.). Furthermore, the debtor can also request the extension of the lien to include rent/leasehold claims (Art. 152 para. 2 SchKG; see OK-Paydar, Art. 152 SchKG N. 23 et seq.). In addition to the debt enforcement request, the debt enforcement lienor is obliged to notify any subsequent lienors of the initiation of the debt enforcement proceedings (Art. 151 para. 2 SchKG; see n. 43 et seq.).
15 (ii) Upon receipt of the application for debt enforcement, the debt enforcement office issues an order for payment. This contains the information listed in Art. 69 para. 2 SchKG. In addition, the special features pursuant to Art. 152 para. 1 no. 1 and 2 SchKG (pledged object, special payment deadline and threat) must be observed in the case of debt enforcement for realization of a pledge (see OK-Paydar, Art. 152 SchKG no. 2 et seq.; specimen forms no. 3a and 3b). In addition to the creditor and the debtor, any co-operators are also served with the payment order in the debt enforcement proceedings for realization of the pledge (Art. 70 and Art. 153 para. 2 SchKG). Furthermore, the other general provisions on the order for payment apply in debt enforcement proceedings for the realization of pledges (Art. 153 para. 4 in conjunction with Art. 71-73 SchKG).
16 (iii) In accordance with the express reference, the general provisions on the legal proposal and on the opening of legal proceedings apply in the debt enforcement proceedings for the realization of liens (Art. 153 para. 4 in conjunction with Art. 74-86 SchKG). In debt enforcement proceedings for the realization of liens, it is particularly important that - in addition to the debtor being pursued - all co-operating companies can also file an objection in accordance with Art. 153 para. 2 and 2bis SchKG. Otherwise, the procedure is basically the same as in ordinary initiation proceedings: The (co-)debtor can lodge an objection (Art. 74 et seq. SchKG) and the debtor then has the option of removing the objection by means of (provisional or definitive) legal opening or an action for recognition (Art. 79 et seq. SchKG; for the special features in connection with the rent/leasehold freeze, see. OK-Paydar, Art. 152 SchKG N. 35 f.). The following can be disputed with the legal proposal: The existence, scope and due date of the claim as well as the existence and scope of the lien. If the debtor raises an objection to the claim and the lien, the debtor can only have the objection removed if it has a title to the lien and the amount of the lien.
17 (iv) It is inherent to the system of debt enforcement for the realization of liens that the attachment stage no longer applies; a request for continuation is therefore not required. As soon as the debtor has obtained a legally binding payment order in pending debt enforcement proceedings and complies with the minimum and maximum time limits pursuant to Art. 154 SchKG, it can submit the request for realization. If the debt collector (erroneously) submits a request for continuation (Art. 88 SchKG) instead of a request for enforcement, the debt enforcement office must give the debt collector the opportunity to rectify the situation (Art. 32 para. 4 SchKG).
18 (v) As soon as the debtor has submitted the request for realization in the debt enforcement proceedings for the realization of the pledge, the proceedings enter the realization stage. The realization of the pledge is governed by reference to the realization procedure in the debt enforcement proceedings for attachment (Art. 155 f. SchKG; see also Art. 102 VZG). In particular, any objection proceedings are conducted at this stage of the proceedings (Art. 106 et seq. SchKG). In the case of real estate, the debt enforcement office also draws up a list of encumbrances and conducts the encumbrance adjustment proceedings (Art. 140 SchKG).
19 (vi) The realization of the pledged object is followed by the distribution of the pledge proceeds. Here, Art. 157 SchKG must be observed as well as - due to the reference in Art. 157 para. 4 SchKG - Art. 147, 148 and 150 SchKG. The costs for the administration of the pledge as well as the realization and distribution must be paid in advance from the pledge proceeds (Art. 157 para. 1 SchKG); in particular, the real estate gains taxes are part of the realization costs. The remaining pledge proceeds are used to satisfy the pledgees; any surplus goes to the pledge owner. If the proceeds of the pledge are not sufficient to satisfy all pledgees, a schedule of claims procedure must be carried out (Art. 157 para. 3 SchKG); notification and contestation are governed by Art. 147 and 148 SchKG. If the pledge could not be realized at all due to the principle of coverage (Art. 126 SchKG) or due to a waiver by the pledgee (Art. 127 SchKG), or if the proceeds of the pledge do not fully cover the pledgee's claim, the debt enforcement office issues a certificate of default (Art. 158 para. 1 SchKG) to the claiming pledgee (and only to the latter). Within one month of receipt of the certificate of lien, the creditor can submit a request for the continuation of debt enforcement proceedings for attachment or bankruptcy without a new payment order having to be issued (Art. 158 para. 2 SchKG). Furthermore, the certificate of lien is deemed to be an acknowledgement of debt within the meaning of Art. 82 SchKG and therefore constitutes a provisional title for the opening of legal proceedings. The certificate of lien is not a certificate of loss (see Art. 149 SchKG).
III. Application for debt enforcement (para. 1)
A. Preliminary remarks
20 The pledgee initiates the debt enforcement proceedings by submitting a written or oral request for debt enforcement to the competent debt enforcement office, stating certain details (see N. 21 et seq.). The request is directed against the debtor (not necessarily the same as the lien holder). This requires explanation in three respects:
Form: The pledgee can submit the debt enforcement request orally or in writing (Art. 67 SchKG). In the case of a written request, it is advisable to use the federal model form no. 1, although its use is not mandatory (Art. 3 para. 1bis VFRR). The pledgee can also process the debt enforcement request via the "Easygov" platform provided by the federal government; the completed debt enforcement request can then be submitted to the debt enforcement office electronically (Art. 33a para. 1 SchKG) or by post (in paper form). Regardless of the form of the debt enforcement request and the method of submission, a signature of the debt enforcement pledgee is required. This even applies to oral debt enforcement requests: The debt enforcement office must transfer the oral information to model form no. 1 and have the form signed by the debtor (Art. 3 para. 2 VFRR). If the signature is missing (or if there is another improvable formal error), this is not detrimental; the debt enforcement office must give the debtor the opportunity to improve the form (Art. 32 para. 4 SchKG).
Active legitimation: If only one lienor is entitled to the lien, this lienor alone has the active legitimation to enforce the realization of the lien. If several lienors are entitled to the lien jointly, they can only proceed jointly. In the case of different liens with different rankings, each individual lienor has the right to act independently of the others.
Passive legitimation: The debt enforcement request is directed against the debtor of the claim, who is normally also the owner of the pledge. In the case of a third-party pledge, the debtor and pledge owner are not the same person. Nevertheless, the pledgee only has to submit a debt enforcement request; the third-party pledgee is included in the proceedings as a co-operating party (see Art. 153 para. 2 and 2bis SchKG).
21 The debtor must include all the information required by Art. 67 and Art. 151 SchKG in the debt enforcement request, otherwise it risks the debt enforcement or the order for payment being set aside or declared null and void on appeal; if necessary, the debtor must first be given a period of time to rectify the deficiencies (see Art. 32 para. 4 SchKG; see Nos. 23 and 31 f.). First of all, every debt enforcement request must contain the following information: Name and place of residence of the enforcing pledgee (Art. 67 para. 1 no. 1 SchKG), name and place of residence of the enforced debtor (Art. 67 para. 1 no. 2 SchKG), the amount of the claim (in Swiss francs; Art. 67 para. 1 no. 3 SchKG) and - if available - the claim document and its date (Art. 67 para. 1 no. 3 SchKG). In addition, the debtor must request the realization of the pledge in the debt enforcement proceedings pursuant to Art. 151 para. 1 SchKG (N. 23) and provide information on the pledged property (N. 24 et seq.) and any third-party pledge holders (N. 26 et seq.); the debtor must also indicate if the pledged property is a family home or a shared home (N. 38 et seq.). This is explained in detail below.
B. Realization of the pledge and the pledged property
22 In principle, the debtor must expressly request the enforcement of the pledge in the application for enforcement (see n. 23) and specify the object of the pledge (see n. 24 et seq.). Various points must be observed here, which are discussed below.
1. Debt enforcement request for realization of the pledge
23 In principle, the debt enforcement office only initiates debt enforcement proceedings for the realization of a pledge if the debtor submits a corresponding request for debt enforcement proceedings for the realization of a pledge. This needs to be clarified in several respects:
It is advisable for the debtor to expressly request the enforcement for realization of the pledge in the "remarks" of the request for enforcement (specimen form no. 1). This is because the doctrine repeatedly states that the debt enforcement office may conclude that the lien realization procedure has been waived if the debtor does not expressly request the enforcement of the lien. In my opinion, however, this must be qualified to the extent that - especially in the case of laypersons - no express request is required if the debtor designates the object of the pledge in the debt enforcement request; in the event of ambiguities, the debt enforcement office must give the debtor the opportunity to improve the situation (Art. 32 para. 4 SchKG). If the debt enforcement office carries out debt enforcement proceedings for seizure or bankruptcy despite a sufficient request for realization of the pledge, the debtor can defend itself by means of an appeal (Art. 17 SchKG) and demand the debt enforcement proceedings for realization of the pledge.
Some scholars demand that the debtor must (additionally) specify in the "remarks" whether they intend to realize a lien on real property or a pledge (Art. 37 SchKG). According to the view expressed here, it must be sufficient if the indication of the pledged object shows which type of pledge realization the debtor is seeking (see above). If there are still uncertainties about the type of realization of the pledge, the debt enforcement office must give the debtor the opportunity to clarify or improve the situation (Art. 32 para. 4 SchKG).
If, on the other hand, there is a complete lack of reference to the object of the pledge and a request regarding the debt enforcement for realization of the pledge, the debt enforcement office carries out debt enforcement for seizure or for bankruptcy - subject, of course, to the objection of beneficium excussionis realis (see N. 10). However, the creditor does not lose the lien by initiating ordinary debt enforcement proceedings; if the ordinary debt enforcement proceedings have been suspended by a legal proposal or have lapsed due to a waiver by the debt enforcement creditor - through a formal declaration of withdrawal to the debt enforcement office - the creditor can initiate new debt enforcement proceedings (for realization of the lien). However, if the creditor is already entitled to file a request for continuation in the earlier (ordinary) debt enforcement proceedings or has already done so, further debt enforcement for the same claim is inadmissible; the debtor must raise this objection by means of an appeal or legal objection.
2. Information on the object of the pledge
24 The debtor must specify the pledged object as precisely as possible in the application for debt enforcement (it is advisable to include the type and rank of the lien and details of the location), as only the pledged objects specified in the application may ultimately be realized. It is sufficient "if it can be reasonably inferred from the information provided that the pledged object is located". The following should be added for clarification:
If there is a collective pledge (i.e. several pledged objects are liable for one claim; see Art. 798 para. 1 CC regarding land), the debtor must include all pledged objects in the enforcement for realization of the pledge. This follows from Art. 816 para. 3 CC, which applies directly to the realization of a lien on real property and is applied analogously to the realization of a pledge. Due to the mandatory nature of Art. 816 para. 3 CC, the supervisory authorities must intervene ex officio if the enforcement is not directed against all pledged assets of the total pledge. Even if several pledged objects are liable for the claim, the realization is to be carried out "only to the extent necessary" (Art. 816 para. 3 CC, last sentence); this principle is specified in Art. 107 VZG (analogous application to the realization of pledges). If individual pledged objects are only subsidiarily liable, Art. 87 VZG must be observed.
By law, liens on real property and chattels also include the appurtenances (Art. 805 para. 1 and Art. 892 CC). Therefore, the debtor does not have to expressly state any appurtenances in the application for debt enforcement. In the case of real estate, the appurtenances are included in the list of encumbrances (Art. 34 para. 1 lit. a VZG in conjunction with Art. 102 VZG; see N. 6).
The rent/leasehold interest freeze (or the extension of the lien to include rent/leasehold interest) must be expressly requested; there is no ex officio order. The debtor can already apply for the interest freeze with the application for debt enforcement (in detail OK-Paydar, Art. 152 SchKG N. 23 et seq.).
The pledge does not have to be presented to the debt enforcement office at the time the debt enforcement order is raised; the pledged object must first be brought to Switzerland for realization (see n. 4). However, it is advisable (although not mandatory) for the debt collector to state in its request where the object of the pledge is located.
25 The debt enforcement office does not examine the substantive existence of the alleged lien; the substantive assessment is carried out by the courts in the various subsequent proceedings (proceedings for the opening of legal proceedings, recognition proceedings, debt settlement proceedings or objection proceedings). However, if the information provided by the debt collector shows that the lien does not exist or is missing, the debt enforcement office may reject the debt enforcement request. However, a rejection is inadmissible if the information provided by the debt collector makes the lien appear possible.
C. Third-party lien holders (para. 1 lit. a)
1. Overview
26 The debtor must state the "name[s] of the third party who has created the pledge or acquired ownership of the pledged object" in the debt enforcement request (Art. 151 para. 1 lit. a SchKG). This means that any third-party pledge holders must be named in the application for debt enforcement (and, if applicable, their place of residence; see N. 29 f.).
27 Third-party lienors are owners of the pledged object who are not identical to the debtor of the pledged claim. Whether the pledged object was owned by the third party from the outset or the third party acquired ownership of it at a later date is irrelevant; according to the express provision, the third-party pledgee must be named in both cases. If the pledged object is co-owned or jointly owned by the debtor and a third party, the debtor must also state the (other) co-owners or joint owners in the request (see Art. 88 para. 4 VZG).
2. Information on the third-party lien holder
28 Like the enforcing creditor and the enforced debtor, the third-party lien holder must be clearly and unambiguously named in the application for enforcement, otherwise the enforcing party risks the resulting payment order being voidable or null and void. This requires explanation:
29 (i) Pursuant to Art. 151 para. 1 lit. a SchKG, the creditor must state the name of the third-party lienholder in the debt enforcement request. Whether the debt collector must also state the place of residence or address of the third-party lien holder is the subject of differing doctrinal opinions. Some scholars refer to the clear wording of the law, which only requires the name to be stated. Another part of the doctrine presupposes that the debtor states the place of residence or - if the place of residence is unknown - at least expressly refers to this fact.
30 It may be true that Art. 151 para. 1 lit. a SchKG only requires the "name of the third party". However, this justification falls short: the ratio legis of this provision suggests that the third-party lien holder should be named as precisely as possible so that the debt enforcement office can also serve an order for payment on them (see Art. 153 para. 2 lit. a SchKG). If the address details are missing, it is difficult to effect service. The same basic idea underlies Art. 67 para. 1 nos. 1 and 2 SchKG, which is why this provision expressly requires the debtor to state their place of residence and that of the debtor. It therefore makes sense to require information on the place of residence of the third-party lien holder in addition to the name - at least in those cases in which the debtor knows or should know the address (see, however, n. 32). If the place of residence of the third-party lien holder is unknown, an analogous application of Art. 66 para. 4 SchKG (public announcement) is appropriate.
31 (ii) The debt enforcement office must incorporate the information in the debt enforcement request into the order for payment without any changes (Art. 69 para. 2 no. 1 SchKG). Therefore, incomplete, unclear or incorrect information on the creditor or debtor involved in the debt enforcement proceedings may result in the order for payment being null and void (see Art. 22 para. 1 SchKG) - but only in cases where the deficient party designation was likely to mislead and the parties involved were actually misled. In the case of other defects that do not lead to the invalidity of the payment order, the party concerned has the right to appeal (Art. 17 SchKG); if the party fails to appeal, the defect is deemed to have been cured.
32 In principle, the above must also apply to incomplete, unclear and incorrect information about the third-party lien holder, although the debt enforcement office is regularly required to set the debtor a deadline for rectifying the deficiency (see Art. 32 para. 4 SchKG). In addition, the debt enforcement office must not place excessively high demands on the designation of the third-party lien holder, especially as it concerns information to which the debt collectors often have little or no access. In other words, even if the debt collector must in principle state the place of residence of the third-party lien holder (see n. 30 above), this can only apply where the debt collector knows or should know the place of residence. The debt enforcement office must therefore be considerate if the information on the third-party lien holder is incomplete or unclear (see n. 33 et seq. below on the legal consequences of a complete lack of information on the third-party lien holder).
3. Subsequent service of the payment order
33 The enforcing lienor must designate the third-party lien holder in the debt enforcement request so that the debt enforcement office can also serve a payment order on him (Art. 153 para. 2 lit. a SchKG). However, difficulties may arise here, as the debt enforcement office is not always aware of the third-party lien relationship at the time the debt enforcement order is raised. For example, a third-party lien may be established after the lien has been created without the lienor having been informed (see Art. 832 para. 1 CC). If the debt collector does not specify the third-party lienor in its debt enforcement request (in the knowledge or ignorance of the third-party lien relationship), this is generally not detrimental: in this case - after the third-party lien relationship becomes known - the payment order must be served on the third-party lienor retrospectively (Art. 100 para. 1 and Art. 88 para. 1 VZG; analogous application to enforcement of a pledge). This can be clarified as follows:
34 (i) Even if the service of the payment order can in principle be made up for later, the debt collector has an interest in designating (known) third-party lien holders already in the debt enforcement request. This is because the debt enforcement office only obtains an extract from the land register after the application for enforcement has been filed (Art. 99 para. 1 VZG). This can therefore lead to major delays if the debt enforcement office only serves the order for payment on the third-party lien holder at this (later) point in time; as is known, the service of the last order for payment is decisive for the calculation of the enforcement period (Art. 154 SchKG) (Art. 98 para. 1 SchKG).
35 (ii) As long as the debt enforcement office has not executed the realization (i.e. even after the application for realization has been filed), the debt enforcement office may subsequently serve the order for payment on the third-party lien holder (see Art. 100 para. 1 VZG). Before the debt enforcement office can proceed with realization, the following must be observed: Firstly, the last or subsequently served payment order must also have become legally binding. This means that any legal proposal made by the third-party lien holder must have been removed by the debt collector (of course, this also applies to all other legal proposals). Secondly, the one- or six-month minimum period for realization (Art. 154 SchKG) must have expired since service of the last payment order (Art. 98 para. 1 VZG). Of course, the third-party lien holder is permitted to waive subsequent service and the minimum period.
36 (iii) It is irrelevant whether the third-party lien relationship already existed prior to the initiation of the debt enforcement proceedings or was only established subsequently. In both cases, the order for payment must be served on the (new) third-party lien holder. This applies even if the debt enforcement office has already served the seller with a payment order and the seller has not lodged an objection. This does not apply to cases in which the restriction on disposal has been noted in the land register (Art. 90 and 97 VZG). In this case, the new lien holder is not entitled to (subsequent) service of the payment order (Art. 88 para. 2 and Art. 100 para. 2 VZG; see OK-Paydar, Art. 152 SchKG N. 18 et seq.).
37 (iv) If the debt enforcement office has executed the realization without serving a payment order on the third party owner, this leads to the nullity of the realization (debt enforcement act without a legally valid payment order). In this case, the awarded bid has no effect and the debt enforcement office must set a new increase date as soon as the subsequently served payment order has also become legally binding. If the minimum deadlines are not complied with, Art. 9 para. 2 and 3 VFRR must be observed; if necessary, the third party owner can file an appeal in accordance with Art. 17 SchKG (no nullity; see OK-Paydar, Art. 152 SchKG N. 14).
D. Family home/shared home (para. 1 lit. b)
38 If the pledged property serves as a family home (Art. 169 CC) or as a shared home (Art. 14 PartG) for the debtor or the third-party pledgee (Art. 151 para. 1 lit. b SchKG), the debtor must refer to this circumstance in the application for debt enforcement.
39 As the legal text already indicates, Art. 151 para. 1 lit. b SchKG must be read together with Art. 169 CC (for Art. 14 PartG, see the comments in N. 42). According to Art. 169 CC, a spouse may only sell the family home or restrict the rights to it with the express consent of the other spouse. This is intended to prevent the "spouse who holds the rights in rem or compulsory rights to the family home from depriving the other spouse of the home that is essential to his or her life against his or her will". In order to implement this principle in debt enforcement proceedings for the realization of liens, the legislator has introduced Art. 151 para. 1 lit. b SchKG (and Art. 153 para. 2 lit. b SchKG): Accordingly, the debt enforcement office must also serve the order for payment on the spouse and the spouse can defend himself or herself against the debt enforcement by means of a legal proposal (Art. 153 para. 2 and 2bis SchKG).
40 Due to the reference to Art. 169 CC, it is appropriate to interpret the term "family home" used in the SchKG in the same way as in the CC. In a nutshell, the family home is "the place where the center of marital and family life is located". In principle, this only applies to an apartment. Vacation homes and second homes are therefore not considered family homes. Furthermore, only married couples (with or without children) can invoke Art. 169 CC, whereby the mere intention to establish a family home is not sufficient - the couple must have actually moved into the home.
41 It is not always clear to the debtor whether the pledged property is a family home. For example, according to federal court case law, not every pledge on a family home requires the consent of the other spouse (see Art. 169 CC), which is why the pledgee cannot always be aware of the pledgee's residential situation. Accordingly, it may happen that the debt collector does not or cannot refer to the family home in the application for debt enforcement. However, this has no immediate consequences: The debt enforcement office can subsequently serve the order for payment on the other spouse in the course of the debt enforcement proceedings (Art. 88 para. 1 and Art. 100 para. 1 VZG; the comments on third-party lien holders [N. 33 et seq.] also apply mutatis mutandis here). If a change of use occurs in the course of the debt enforcement proceedings (i.e. the pledged property is now used as a family home), the payment order must also be served retrospectively. The (non-enforced) spouse can effect service of the payment order by means of a SchKG complaint. If the debt enforcement office has carried out the realization although the debt enforcement office has not served the (non-operated) spouse with an order for payment, this will result in the realization being null and void (debt enforcement action without a legally valid order for payment).
42 The term "joint home" (Art. 14 PartG) essentially corresponds to the description of the family home (N. 40). The above explanations (nos. 38-41) also apply mutatis mutandis to pledged properties that serve as a joint residence. Furthermore, Art. 151 para. 1 lit. b SchKG does not apply to other forms of communities of interest between spouses or registered partners; in particular, the (non-operated) spouse does not have to be named in the application for debt enforcement if the debt enforcement relates to a pledged property that is solely an agricultural business operated jointly by both spouses (Art. 40 BGBB).
IV. Duty to notify in the event of subsequent pledging (para. 2)
43 Art. 151 para. 2 SchKG imposes an obligation to notify the enforcing (preceding) pledgee in the debt enforcement proceedings for the realization of a pledge if the pledged object is encumbered with a subsequent pledge (Art. 886 CC): The enforcing (preceding) lienor must notify the subsequent lienor of the initiation of the debt enforcement proceedings (for special cases, see N. 45). The duty to notify also applies in the case of subsequent pledging of claims and other rights, although Art. 151 para. 2 SchKG makes no express reference to Art. 903 CC (see, however, Art. 899 para. 2 CC, which refers to the provisions on pledges). In contrast, in debt enforcement proceedings for the realization of a lien on real property, the other parties are notified by means of a special official notice (see Art. 139 SchKG and Art. 30 and 102 VZG).
44 The duty to notify only exists if a subsequent lien has been created. In addition to the general requirements (pledge agreement and a claim to be secured), this requires two things (Art. 886 CC; similar provision in Art. 903 CC):
Firstly, the (preceding) pledgee must have been notified in writing (Art. 12 et seq. CO) of the subsequent pledge. In principle, the pledgee is obliged to give notice, which is clear from the French legal text. However, the pledgee can authorize the subsequent pledgee to notify the prior pledgee himself. For the sake of clarity, it should be noted that the notification obligation under Art. 886 CC should not be confused with that under Art. 151 para. 2 SchKG: the former provision applies to the pledgee, whereas the latter obliges the (enforcing) preceding pledgee.
Secondly, the pledgee must instruct the (preceding) pledgee to hand over the pledge to the subsequent pledgee after it has been satisfied. However, the consent of the preceding pledgee is not required.
45 The enforcing (preceding) pledgee (sender) must notify the subsequent pledgee (addressee) of the initiation of the enforcement proceedings. This requires clarification in two respects:
If several subsequent lien creditors exist, then the enforcing (preceding) lien creditor must notify all subsequent lien creditors.
According to the wording of Art. 151 para. 2 SchKG, only the enforcing (preceding) lienor has a duty to notify. Therefore, some scholars are of the opinion that the enforcing subsequent lien creditor does not have to notify the preceding lien creditor(s). However, this part of the doctrine points out that the (preceding) lienor - as soon as it becomes aware of the debt enforcement - must notify the subsequent lienors who have priority over the pursuing subsequent lienor (analogous to Art. 151 para. 2 SchKG). The other part of the doctrine is of the opinion that the enforcing subsequent lien creditor is obliged to notify the preceding lien creditors. Due to the comparable interests, it is justified in my opinion to impose a duty of notification on the subsequent lienor (also vis-à-vis the preceding lienors) by way of a telelogical extension if she initiates debt enforcement proceedings.
46 The notification is not bound to any particular form and can therefore be made in writing, orally or in another form. Since failure to notify may have certain consequences (see n. 48), it is advisable to notify in a form that can be proven (e.g. by registered letter).
47 The law does not specify the time at which the enforcing lienor must give notice. Art. 151 para. 2 SchKG only states that it must inform the subsequent lienor of the initiation of debt enforcement - no exact point in time is specified. However, it is advisable for the pursuing (preceding) lienor to notify the debtor promptly after the debt enforcement proceedings have been initiated, otherwise it runs the risk of becoming liable for damages (see below).
48 Failure to notify (or late notification) has no effect on the debt enforcement proceedings. On the other hand, there are various references in the doctrine that the enforcing lienor could be liable to pay damages to the subsequent lienor if it (the enforcing party) has failed to give notice. In principle, this is not objectionable, especially since the failure to notify (or even late notification) can result in the subsequent lienor no longer being able to assert its rights (see n. 49). However, the question arises as to the legal basis on which this claim for damages can be based - apart from a few exceptions, this is not addressed in the doctrine. Below are some thoughts on this:
As a rule, there is no contract between the prior and subsequent pledgee, which means that non-contractual liability under Art. 41 CO comes into consideration in the first instance. However, it is difficult to assess whether all liability requirements of Art. 41 CO are actually met in the event of a failure to notify. The main question is what constitutes unlawfulness in the event of a breach of the duty to notify: according to the view expressed here, it can be argued that Art. 151 para. 2 SchKG is a protective provision, as it is intended - at least in a broad sense - to protect assets (see also n. 49). If, on the other hand, the protective nature of Art. 151 para. 2 SchKG is denied, it is not clear from what unlawfulness can be derived in these cases; in particular, the subsequent pledgee cannot rely on Art. 2 CC, as this provision can only serve as a protective norm in exceptional cases (which, in my opinion, are not present here).
In addition to non-contractual liability, the subsequent lienor could also rely on Art. 97 para. 1 CO, even if - as mentioned - no contractual relationship exists. This requires a look at the subsequent pledgee's claim for restitution against the prior pledgee: According to some doctrine, a so-called "statutory obligation" exists between these two pledgees, to which Art. 97 para. 1 CO applies by analogy. If the preceding pledgee breaches its (statutory) duty to surrender, the subsequent pledgee can assert a claim for damages against the preceding pledgee. If this idea is transferred to Art. 151 para. 2 SchKG, then the subsequent pledgee - based on this statutory obligation - has the option of claiming damages from the enforcing (preceding) pledgee in the event of a breach of the duty of notification (analogous to Art. 97 para. 1 CO).
49 The purpose of the duty to notify or the ratio legis of Art. 151 para. 2 SchKG is to enable the subsequent pledgee to protect its rights to the pledged property by means of notification. This includes the following in particular:
In order to prevent the realization of the pledge, the subsequent pledgee has the option of settling the (third-party) debt of the debtor being enforced against the preceding pledgee (so-called redemption/redemption). As a result, the subsequent pledgee acquires both the claim of the preceding pledgee and the latter's lien (subrogation; Art. 110 no. 1 CO). In other words, the subsequent lien creditor assumes the creditor status (including ancillary rights) of the preceding lien creditor (so-called retroactive effect). Art. 827 CC must be observed for the owner's right to redeem the mortgage.
The subsequent lienor may have to assert their lien as part of an objection procedure (Art. 155 para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 106 et seq. SchKG). The basic prerequisite for conducting the objection proceedings is the filing of the third-party claim (Art. 106 para. 2 SchKG), which is why timely notification of the initiation of debt enforcement proceedings is advisable. The primary purpose of the objection proceedings is to clarify the alleged rights of external third parties (in this case the following pledgee) to the pledged object. In addition, any ranking disputes regarding various liens must also be dealt with in these proceedings.
Finally, the subsequent lienor may have the need to purchase the pledged property at public auction (Art. 125 et seq. SchKG). In this context, it should be noted that the principle of cover must always be observed at an auction. According to this principle, the bid may only be accepted if the bid exceeds the amount of any claims ranking prior to the claimant creditor (Art. 126 para. 1 SchKG). The creditor at whose request the increase was ordered is deemed to be the "creditor pursuing the claim" (see Art. 105 para. 1 VZG). "Positively formulated, the realization proceeds must therefore only [...] exceed the sum of those lien claims whose ranking is higher than the highest-ranking claim for which the realization was requested." This means the following for the constellation with one preceding and one subsequent pledgee: If the preceding pledgee has initiated the debt enforcement for realization of the pledge and demanded realization, the principle of coverage has no effect on the minimum surcharge price; from the perspective of the debtor (preceding pledgee), there are no preceding claims. The situation is different if the subsequent lienor seeks to enforce the realization of the lien: In this case, the principle of cover must be observed.
Bibliography
Acocella Domenico, Kommentierungen zu Art. 38 und 41 SchKG, in: Staehelin Daniel/Bauer Thomas/Lorandi Franco (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Bundesgesetz über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs, 3. Aufl., Basel 2021.
Amonn Kurt/Walther Fridolin, Grundriss des Schuldbetreibungs- und Konkursrechts, 9. Aufl., Bern 2013.
Baeriswyl Dominik/Milani Dominik/Schmid Jean-Daniel, Kommentierung zu Art. 33 SchKG, in: Kren Kostkiewicz Jolanta/Vock Dominik (Hrsg.), Schulthess Kommentar (SK) zum Bundesgesetz über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs (SchKG), 4. Aufl., Zürich 2017.
Bahar Rashid/Peyer Martin, Kommentierung zu Art. 31 BEG, in: Honsell Heinrich/Vogt Nedim Peter/Watter Rolf (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Wertpapierrecht, Basel 2012.
Bauer Thomas/Bauer Christoph, Kommentierungen zu Art. 884, 886, 891, 894 und 903 ZGB, in: Geiser Thomas/Wolf Stephan (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Zivilgesetzbuch II, 7. Aufl., Basel 2023.
Bernheim Marc/Känzig Philipp/Geiger Gaudenz, Kommentierungen zu Art. 151–153, 154, 155 und 158 SchKG, in: Staehelin Daniel/Bauer Thomas/Lorandi Franco (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Bundesgesetz über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs, 3. Aufl., Basel 2021.
Brand Eduard, Die betreibungsrechtliche Zwangsverwertung von Grundstücken im Pfandverwertungsverfahren, Ein Handbuch für die Praxis, Zürich 2008 (zit. Brand, Handbuch).
Brand Ernst, Betreibung auf Pfandverwertung, SJK (Schweizerische Juristische Kartothek) Nr. 991, Genf 1949 (zit. Brand, SJK).
Brändli Gian, Kommentierung zu Art. 14 PartG, in: Breitschmid Peter/Jungo Alexandra (Hrsg.), Handkommentar zum Schweizer Privatrecht, Band I: Personen- und Familienrecht, 1–456 ZGB, Partnerschaftsgesetz, 3. Aufl., Zürich 2016.
Brehm Roland, Berner Kommentar, Art. 41–61 OR, 5. Aufl., Bern 2021.
Emmenegger Susan/Tschentscher Axel, Kommentierung zu Art. 1 ZGB, in: Berner Kommentar, Art. 1–9 ZGB, Bern 2012.
Erne Urs, Mehrfache Verpfändung von Mobilien und Rechten, Zürich 1996 (Diss. Zürich).
Feuz Andreas, Kommentierung zu Art. 140 SchKG, in: Staehelin Daniel/Bauer Thomas/Lorandi Franco (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Bundesgesetz über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs, 3. Aufl., Basel 2021.
Foëx Bénédict, Kommentierung zu Art. 151 SchKG, in: Dallèves Louis/Foëx Bénédict/Jeandin Nicolas (Hrsg.), Commentaire Romand, Poursuite et faillite, Basel 2005.
Fritzsche Hans/Walder-Bohner Hans Ulrich, Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs nach schweizerischem Recht, Band I: Allgemeine Lehren, Das Einleitungsverfahren, Die Betreibung auf Pfändung und auf Pfandverwertung, 3. Aufl., Zürich 1984.
Gauch Peter/Schluep Walter R./Emmenegger Susan, Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, Band II, Zürich 2022.
Gilliéron Pierre-Robert, Commentaire de la loi fédérale sur la poursuite pour dettes et la faillite, Band II: art. 89–158 LP, Lausanne 2000.
Gütlin Rolf/Kuhn Gerhard, Kapitel E.IV, in: Schlegel Roger/Zopfi Markus (Hrsg.), Die betreibungsrechtliche Zwangsverwertung von Grundstücken in Theorie und Praxis, Zürich 2019, S. 182–307.
Hausheer Heinz/Reusser Ruth E./Geiser Thomas, Berner Kommentar, Art. 159–180 ZGB, 2. Aufl., Bern 1999.
Heinel Bastian, Zwangsverwertung von Drittpfändern im Unternehmenskonkurs, Zürich 2022 (Diss. Luzern).
Higi Peter/Bühlmann Anton/Wildisen Christoph, Zürcher Kommentar, Art. 266–268b OR, 5. Aufl., Zürich 2020 (zit. ZK-Higi/Anton bzw. ZK-Higi/Wildisen).
Hürlimann-Kaup Bettina, Die sachenrechtliche Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichts in den Jahren 2017 und 2018, ZBJV 2019, S. 569–613.
Jaeger Carl/Walder Hans Ulrich/Kull Thomas M., Das Bundesgesetz über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs (SchKG), Erläutert für den praktischen Gebrauch, Art. 89–158 SchKG, 5. Aufl., Zürich 2006.
Jent-Sørensen Ingrid, Kommentierungen zu Art. 38 und 41 SchKG, in: Hunkeler Daniel (Hrsg.), Kurzkommentar Schuldbetreibungs- und Konkursgesetz, 2. Aufl., Basel 2014.
Käser Christoph/Häcki Kathrin, Kommentierung zu Art. 151 SchKG, in: Hunkeler Daniel (Hrsg.), Kurzkommentar Schuldbetreibungs- und Konkursgesetz, 2. Aufl., Basel 2014.
Kofmel Ehrenzeller Sabine, Kommentierung zu Art. 67 SchKG, in: Staehelin Daniel/Bauer Thomas/Lorandi Franco (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Bundesgesetz über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs, 3. Aufl., Basel 2021.
Kren Kostkiewicz Jolanta, Schuldbetreibungs- & Konkursrecht, 3. Aufl., Zürich 2018 (zit. Kren Kostkiewicz, SchKG).
Kren Kostkiewicz Jolanta, Kommentierungen zu Art. 85, 87, 88, 100, 102 und 107 VZG, in: Konferenz der Betreibungs- und Konkursbeamten der Schweiz (Hrsg.), Kurzkommentar VZG, Verordnung über die Zwangsverwertung von Grundstücken, Wädenswil 2011 (zit. KUKO-Kren Kostkiewicz).
Kuhn Gerhard, Kommentierung zu Art. 34 VZG, in: Konferenz der Betreibungs- und Konkursbeamten der Schweiz (Hrsg.), Kurzkommentar VZG, Verordnung über die Zwangsverwertung von Grundstücken, Wädenswil 2011 (zit. KUKO-Kuhn).
Kuhn Hans, Schweizerisches Kreditsicherungsrecht, 2. Aufl., Bern 2023 (zit. Kuhn, Kreditsicherungsrecht).
Larenz Karl/Canaris Claus-Wilhelm, Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft, 3. Aufl., Berlin 1995.
Limacher Fabienne/Dürr Samuel, § 15 Gesetzliches Pfandrecht, in: Zweifel Martin/Beusch Michael/Oesterhelt Stefan (Hrsg.), Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Steuerrecht, Immobiliensteuern, Basel 2021.
Maier Philipp/Schwander Ivo, Kommentierung zu Art. 169 ZGB, in: Geiser Thomas/Fountoulakis Christiana (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Zivilgesetzbuch I, Art. 1–456 ZGB, 7. Aufl., Basel 2022.
Milani Dominik, Kommentierungen zu Art. 33 und 37 SchKG, in: Kren Kostkiewicz Jolanta/Vock Dominik (Hrsg.), Schulthess Kommentar (SK) zum Bundesgesetz über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs (SchKG), 4. Aufl., Zürich 2017.
Müggler Patrick, Kapitel E.I–III, in: Schlegel Roger/Zopfi Markus (Hrsg.), Die betreibungsrechtliche Zwangsverwertung von Grundstücken in Theorie und Praxis, Zürich 2019, S. 155–181.
Nordmann Francis/Oneyser Stéphanie, Kommentierungen zu Art. 32, 33 und 37 SchKG, in: Staehelin Daniel/Bauer Thomas/Lorandi Franco (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Bundesgesetz über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs, 3. Aufl., Basel 2021.
Oftinger Karl/Bär Rolf, Zürcher Kommentar, Art. 884–918 ZGB, 3. Aufl., Zürich 1981.
Polivka Lukas, Kommentierung zu Art. 268–268b OR, in: SVIT (Hrsg.), Das schweizerische Mietrecht, Kommentar, 4. Aufl., Zürich 2018 (zit. SVIT-Polivka).
Rampini Corrado/Schulin Hermann, Kommentierung zu Art. 895 ZGB, in: Geiser Thomas/Wolf Stephan (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Zivilgesetzbuch II, 7. Aufl., Basel 2023.
Reetz Peter/Graber Michael, Kommentierung zu Art. 110 OR, in: Furrer Andreas/Schnyder Anton K. (Hrsg.), Handkommentar zum Schweizer Privatrecht, Band V: Obligationenrecht, Allgemeinen Bestimmungen, Art. 1–183 OR, 3. Aufl., Zürich 2016.
Roth Jürg, Kommentierung zu Art. 126 SchKG, in: Staehelin Daniel/Bauer Thomas/Lorandi Franco (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Bundesgesetz über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs, 3. Aufl., Basel 2021.
Rüetschi Sven/Domenig Benjamin, Kommentierungen zu Art. 151 und 152 SchKG, in: Kren Kostkiewicz Jolanta/Vock Dominik (Hrsg.), Schulthess Kommentar (SK) zum Bundesgesetz über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs (SchKG), 4. Aufl., Zürich 2017.
Schellenberg Claus, Die Rechtsstellung des Dritteigentümers in der Betreibung auf Pfandverwertung, Zürich 1968 (Diss. Zürich).
Schmid Jörg/Hürlimann-Kaup Bettina, Sachenrecht, 6. Aufl., Zürich 2022.
Schmid-Tschirren Christina, Kommentierungen zu Art. 794, 805, 816 und 818 ZGB, in: Geiser Thomas/Wolf Stephan (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Zivilgesetzbuch II, 7. Aufl., Basel 2023 (zit. BSK-Schmid-Tschirren).
Schmid-Tschirren Christina, Kommentierung zu Art. 886 ZGB, in: Büchler Andrea/Jakob Dominique (Hrsg.), Kurzkommentar, Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch, 2. Aufl., Basel 2018 (zit. KUKO-Schmid-Tschirren).
Schumacher Rainer/Rey Pascal, Das Bauhandwerkerpfandrecht, Zürich 2021.
Spühler Karl/Dolge Annette, Schuldbetreibungs- und Konkursrecht I, Betreibungs- und Arrestrecht, 8. Aufl., Zürich 2020.
Staehelin Daniel, Kommentierung zu Art. 84 SchKG, in: Staehelin Daniel/Bauer Thomas/Lorandi Franco (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Bundesgesetz über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs, 3. Aufl., Basel 2021 (zit. BSK-Staehelin).
Staehelin Daniel, Kommentierung zu Art. 846 ZGB, in: Geiser Thomas/Wolf Stephan (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Zivilgesetzbuch II, 7. Aufl., Basel 2023 (zit. BSK-Staehelin).
Staehelin Daniel, Die internationale Zuständigkeit der Schweiz im Schuldbetreibungs- und Konkursrecht, AJP 1995, S. 259–284 (zit. Staehelin, AJP 1995).
Staehelin Daniel, Betreibung und Rechtsöffnung beim Schuldbrief, AJP 1994, S. 1255–1272 (zit. Staehelin, AJP 1994).
Steinauer Paul-Henri, Les droits réels, Tome III, Servitudes personnelles, Charges foncières, Droits de gage immobiliers, Droits de gage mobiliers. 5. Aufl., Bern 2021.
Stoffel Walter A./Chabloz Isabelle, Voies d'exécution, Poursuite pour dettes, exécution de jugements et faillite en droit suisse, 3. Aufl., Bern 2016.
Thurnherr Christoph, Kommentierung zu Art. 836 ZGB, in: Geiser Thomas/Wolf Stephan (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Zivilgesetzbuch II, 7. Aufl., Basel 2023.
Weber Rolf H./Emmenegger Susan, Berner Kommentar, Art. 97–109 OR, 2. Aufl., Bern 2020.
Weber Rolf H./von Graffenried Caroline, Berner Kommentar, Art. 110–113 OR, 2. Aufl., Bern 2022.
Wiegand Wolfang, Kommentierung zu Art. 97 OR, in: Widmer Lüchinger Corinne/Oser David (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Obligationenrecht I, 7. Aufl., Basel 2020.
Wolf Stephan/Genna Gian Sandro, Zürcher Kommentar, Partnerschaftsgesetz, Zürich 2007.
Wüthrich Karl/Schoch Peter, Kommentierung zu Art. 69 SchKG, in: Staehelin Daniel/Bauer Thomas/Lorandi Franco (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Bundesgesetz über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs, 3. Aufl., Basel 2021.
Zellweger-Gutknecht Corinne, Kommentierung zu Art. 110 OR, in: Widmer Lüchinger Corinne/Oser David (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Obligationenrecht I, 7. Aufl., Basel 2020.
Zobl Dieter, Berner Kommentar, Art. 888–915 ZGB, 2. Aufl., Bern 1996.
Zobl Dieter/Thurnherr Christoph, Berner Kommentar, Art. 884–887 ZGB, 3. Aufl., Bern 2010.