-
- 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. General
- II. Procedural acts (para. 1)
- III. Written submissions (para. 2)
- IV. Electronic submissions (para. 3)
- V. Submissions to non-competent authorities (para. 4)
- VI. Payments (para. 5)
- Bibliography
- Materials
I. General
1 Analogous provisions to Art. 91 CrimPC are found in fact in all procedural laws (cf. Art. 143 CrimPC, Art. 21 APA, Art. 39 ATSG, Art. 48 BGG). In particular, Art. 91 CrimPC is closely based on Art. 48 BGG. Art. 91 CrimPC applies to the parties and participants in the proceedings. The provision also applies to authorities when they themselves act as parties or other participants in the proceedings, for example the public prosecutor's office in appeal proceedings.
2 The provision on "compliance with time limits" regulates compliance with time limits for procedural acts (para. 1), for a traditional paper submission (para. 2), for electronic submission (para. 3) and for making payments (para. 5). Likewise, the provision contains a regulation regarding the observance of time limits in the case of submission to a Swiss authority that is not competent (para. 4).
3 Although Art. 91 CrimPC refers to "criminal authorities" or "authorities", it also applies to submissions to the courts. The criminal authorities addressed are the police, the public prosecutor's offices and the criminal authorities for transgressions, for example the governor's offices in the Canton of Zurich (cf. Art. 12 CrimPC).
4 No changes will be made to Art. 91 CrimPC with the upcoming CrimPC revision, which will enter into force on January 1, 2024.
II. Procedural acts (para. 1)
5 Parties and participants in proceedings may comply with time limits if the required procedural act is performed at the competent authority on the last day of the time limit.
6 For the purposes of Article 91 para. 1 CrimPC, a "procedural act" is any act with the exception of the submission of a petition (by post or electronically, cf. para. 2 and para. 3) or the making of a payment (cf. para. 5). Paragraph 1 thus applies in particular to oral submissions that should or must be made within the time limit. An example is the oral filing of an appeal with the court of first instance (cf. Art. 399 para. 1 CrimPC).
7 In principle, procedural acts may be performed until the end of the last day of the time limit. However, if they must be performed at the competent authority, they are limited by its opening hours.
III. Written submissions (para. 2)
A. General
8 Paragraph 2 refers to written submissions in paper form, not to electronic (cf. para. 3) or oral submissions (cf. para. 1). The wording of Art. 91 para. 2 CrimPC is identical to Art. 48 para. 1 BGG; accordingly, the case law on Art. 48 para. 1 BGG applies by analogy.
9 As with procedural acts, the delivery of a submission is possible until the end of the last day of the time limit.
10 The time limit may be observed by handing over the submission to the criminal justice authority, to the Swiss postal service, to a Swiss diplomatic or consular representation - or in the exceptional case of imprisonment - to the management of the institution. Relevant for the observance of the time limit is not the receipt of the submission by the criminal justice authority, but the dispatch or delivery of the same within the time limit via one of the designated channels.
B. Criminal authorities
11 The parties or participants in the proceedings do not have an absolute right to hand in the submission personally to the criminal authorities during the entire period. The submission must be made during business hours in exchange for an acknowledgement of receipt as evidence. If the submission is deposited directly in the mailbox of the criminal authority or the courts, there is a (rebuttable) presumption that the submission was made on the day corresponding to the date of receipt (cf. n. 13 below).
C. (Swiss) post and courier services
12 The time limit is deemed to have been observed if the submission is handed over to Swiss Post on the last day of the same at the latest. The postmark certifies the time of posting and establishes a presumption of the time of delivery. The dating by means of a franking machine, on the other hand, is merely a party assertion, since the franking may already have taken place in advance.
13 The party or party to the proceedings who wishes to derive rights from his submission bears the burden of proof for its timeliness. The sender has the right to rebut the presumption resulting from the postmark with all suitable evidence. Possible suitable evidence includes, for example, witnesses or videos. The offer of evidence must be unsolicited and made before the deadline, for example by means of a note on the envelope. In the case of witnesses, the proximity to the party or party to the proceedings is a question of the assessment of evidence. The credibility of the witness's testimony must be examined in the light of the circumstances as a whole. If the counter-evidence does not succeed, the party concerned bears the risk of proving that the mail was actually posted. Only if a party or party to the proceedings cannot prove the timeliness of the posting for reasons for which the criminal authority is responsible, can the burden of proof be deviated from. This is the case, for example, if the authority does not include the envelope with the relevant postmark in the files.
14 The handover of the item to a foreign postal company has no effect on the observance of the time limit; with the exception of posting at Liechtensteinische Post AG. What is relevant for posting with a foreign postal company is not the posting date, but the time at which the item is handed over to Swiss Post for onward carriage. The corresponding period of time must therefore be taken into account. However, Art. 91 para. 2 CrimPC can only be held against a party residing abroad or a party to the proceedings if he/she has been explicitly instructed that only the handover of the item to Swiss Post is time-keeping. This instruction requirement does not apply in the case of (foreign) legal representation. The latter must accept that it is aware of Swiss law if it accepts such a mandate.
15 Courier services are to be regarded as auxiliary persons of their client: Their fault is therefore imputed to the person making the submission as if it were his own. The handing over of the submission by the party or the party to the proceedings to a courier service does not have the effect of preserving the time limit. The time limit is only observed if the courier delivers the submission to the addressee before expiry of the time limit or hands it over to Swiss Post for onward delivery. In contrast, the time limit is observed if the submission is handed over to Swiss Post before expiry of the time limit but Swiss Post uses third parties to process the order, i.e. the third parties act on behalf of Swiss Post (and not the sender).
D. Swiss diplomatic or consular representation
16 Delivery to a Swiss diplomatic or consular representation is treated in the same way as delivery to the criminal authorities or Swiss Post. This provision originates from the PILA and is intended to lead to equal treatment of parties and participants in proceedings abroad with those in Switzerland. Here too, analogous to the handover to the criminal authorities, the personal handover as well as the posting in the mailbox is to be considered as keeping the time limit, whereby the party or party to the proceedings has the risk in the case of a posting in the mailbox that the receipt stamp possibly only bears the date of the following day. The submission must be made to an official Swiss representation. Submission to honorary consulates, which do not have consular authority, is not to be considered as meeting the deadline due to the lack of such authority.
E. Institutional management
17 Inmates may - since they generally do not have access to a Swiss Post letterbox and cannot hand in their submissions personally to the criminal justice authorities or to a Swiss representation - hand in their submissions to the management of the institution within the time limit. The term "management of the institution" is to be interpreted in a reasonably broad manner: a detainee has no influence on which employees of an institution he comes into contact with. Nor can he influence how and how quickly his mail is processed internally. Whether the prison management hands over the received submission to Swiss Post on the same day is not decisive. The delivery to the management of the institution shall be deemed to meet the deadline. In the case of a submission that is received late by the criminal justice authority or the court, it must be clarified when it was handed over to the management of the institution. If no such proof is possible and the petition itself is dated within the time limit, it must be assumed that the person in custody used all the time available to him to hand over the petition on the evening of the last day of the time limit. Riedo rightly states that "detained" in the sense of Art. 91 para. 2 CrimPC does not only refer to persons who are in the execution of a sentence or measure or otherwise in custody, but also to persons whose freedom of movement is restricted by the state in some other way - such as, for example, in the case of persons in a custodial placement (Art. 426 et seq. CC) or juveniles who are placed in a private institution.
IV. Electronic submissions (para. 3)
A. Form of transmission
18 Electronic submissions to an authority shall be sent to its official address on the recognized delivery platform used by it. Parties and other participants in proceedings may not send electronic submissions to any known e-mail addresses, for example, of the department of a court responsible for their proceedings or of the competent public prosecutor. This also does not apply if the submission is sent via a recognized platform. A list of all addresses of authorities for electronic submissions in civil and criminal proceedings on the recognized delivery platforms used by them can be found online at https://www.ch.ch/de/e-justice. The provisions of the VeÜ-ZSSV do not preclude the authorities from using other official addresses which they do not publish in the public directory but, for example, only communicate among the authorities. One might think here, for example, of the compulsory measures courts, in whose proceedings concerning covert compulsory measures only the public prosecutor's office is a party from the outset.
19 The recognized service platform shall immediately issue a receipt proving the time of receipt of a submission and the documents transmitted. Pursuant to Art. 91 para. 3 CrimPC, in the case of electronic submission of a petition, the time at which the receipt is issued confirming that all steps necessary on the party's side for transmission have been completed is decisive for compliance with a time limit. The concretization follows in Art. 8b VeÜ-ZSSV: "The time at which the delivery platform used by the parties to the proceedings issues the receipt that it has received the submission for the attention of the authority (delivery receipt) is decisive for the observance of a time limit."
20 The moment when the criminal authority opens the document and actually takes note of it is irrelevant. When the original provision of Article 91 para. 3 CrimPC was enacted, it was assumed that each court or authority would develop and use its own delivery system that would issue appropriate receipts. The time limit was met "if the receipt by the criminal authority was confirmed by its IT system on the last day of the time limit at the latest". However, in practice, a system with various recognized delivery platforms issuing the receipts and serving the authorities with the submissions was implemented. In practice, this led to legal uncertainty, which is why the procedural laws (Art. 91 para. 3 CrimPC, Art. 143 para. 2 CPC and Art. 21a para. 3 APA) were amended with the Federal Act of 18 March 2016 on Electronic Signature (ZertES) in its current version. Currently, the two platforms PrivaSphere Secure Messaging of the company PrivaSphere AG and IncaMail of Swiss Post are definitely recognized for secure delivery within the scope of legal proceedings.
21 The receipt in which the delivery platform used by the sender certifies the point in time at which the sender successfully transmitted its submission to the platform is therefore decisive for determining the timeliness of a submission. In contrast to written submissions (Art. 91 para. 2 CrimPC), it is not the time of sending (expedition principle) that is decisive, but rather a corresponding reaction in the environment of the addressee in the form of an acknowledgement of receipt (receipt principle). The sender thus bears the risk of missing the deadline if the receipt is not issued in time. In this case, she must additionally submit her submission in due time by mail or successfully (i.e. against a receipt) electronically. This ensures that the risk of default remains with the sender only - but still - as long as she can control it and know immediately if she needs to act further to meet the deadlines. Accordingly, the sender must take into account all the deficiencies that are directly indicated to her with the delivery receipt of her platform. In this context, technical problems are not a reason for restoring deadlines.
22 If the sender has not used a recognized delivery platform, the entry is deemed not to have been made from the outset. An improvable (formal) error with entitlement to the setting of a period of grace does not exist. In this respect, the case law qualifies the use of a recognized delivery platform as far as can be seen as a validity requirement (and not merely as a purely regulatory requirement).
23 As far as can be seen, the literature and case law have not yet answered the question of what happens if a submission that is in itself formally valid, i.e. correctly electronically signed, is submitted via a recognized delivery platform, but no delivery receipt is issued (e.g. because only the dispatch type "confidential" was selected instead of "registered mail" [designation with IncaMail] or "eGov registered mail" [designation with PrivaSphere]), but the submission is proven to have arrived at the authority within the deadline. In our opinion, the authority would be lapsing into excessive formalism here if it were to qualify such a submission as not having been received within the deadline, only on the grounds that no submission receipt had been issued. Analogous to the case law concerning postal items, the proof of timeliness would also have to be possible with all admissible means of evidence. It should be added that the FDJP has only specified the requirements for such a receipt in the Annex to the Ordinance on the Recognition of Platforms for Secure Delivery in Legal Proceedings of 16 September 2014 no. 5. In the absence of publication of this annex in the AS or in the SR, however, it seems at least questionable whether this list of criteria is capable of having general legal effects.
24 As a result, there is a procedural causal liability, which is obviously intended by the legislator. However, as long as the parties have to bear the risk of a technical error not only for themselves and their own systems used, but also for the recognized delivery platforms, this is anything but conducive to electronic legal transactions.
B. Time of transmission
25 If the determination of the last day is sufficient to determine timeliness in the case of written submissions, the time must be defined to the second in the case of electronic submissions. Art. 110 para. 6 SCC states that a day consists of 24 consecutive hours. This implies that a new day begins after the expiration of these 24 hours. Consequently, the last day of a period begins at 00.00 (midnight) and ends with the completion of the last second of that day, that is, with the completion of the 59th second of 23.59 hours. This time is again referred to as 00.00 and marks the beginning of the following day. The formulation predominantly used by the Federal Supreme Court and in the literature (with respect to written submissions), that a day ends at 24.00 hrs, is outdated and not (any longer) permissible today according to the international standard "ISO 8601".
V. Submissions to non-competent authorities (para. 4)
26 If a party or party to proceedings submits its submission to a Swiss authority that is not competent or addresses it to such an authority, Art. 91 para. 4 CrimPC obliges the authority that is not competent to forward the submission in question to the competent authority without delay. Under this exception, a submission to a non-competent authority - provided that the time limit was observed and the submission was made in the correct form - complies with the time limit. The Federal Supreme Court has recognized this procedure as a general procedural principle that applies to all areas of law; it derives from the rules of good faith and applies to all areas of law.
27 However, this principle applies only if the authority lacking jurisdiction was seized by mistake or because of doubts about jurisdiction or because of an incorrect instruction on the right of appeal. It does not apply if the incompetent authority was called upon deliberately and in the knowledge that it lacked jurisdiction. If an incompetent authority or an authority that considers itself incompetent is deliberately called upon, but the calling party or party to the proceedings is convinced that it is the competent authority, para. 4 applies. In such a case, it is not likely to be an abuse of rights, which would not merit legal protection - with the exception of those cases in which the party or party to the proceedings insists on being dealt with by the (wrongly) called authority.
28 All criminal authorities within the meaning of Art. 12 ff. CrimPC as well as federal, cantonal and municipal judicial and administrative authorities. In accordance with the case law of the Federal Supreme Court, the submission should be forwarded to the competent authority within two to three days.
VI. Payments (para. 5)
A. General
29Para. 5 of the provision regulates the observance of deadlines for payments to criminal authorities. The provision essentially corresponds to the provisions of civil and administrative proceedings and to those of proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court.
30 According to the wording of the provision, it applies only to payments in respect of which a criminal authority has set a deadline for payment to the persons subject to the law or has requested them to make payment. Accordingly, the provision applies only to payments for which the legal ground is derived from the CrimPC, but not to payments in the course of enforcement.
B. Compliance with the time limit
31 According to the provision, a deadline set by the criminal authority for the payment of a sum of money is initially deemed to have been met in time if the full amount was handed over to the Swiss Post for the benefit of the criminal authority no later than on the last day of the deadline. The decisive factor for meeting the deadline is thus not the receipt of the payment by the criminal authority (principle of receipt), but the time of handover or debiting.
32 This variant of payment within the time limit means handing over the required amount to Swiss Post or Postfinance. This can be done directly at the post office counter by means of cash or card payment and has a time-preserving effect provided the payment is made on the last day of the deadline, whereby the postmark or the receipt must be taken into account.
33 Furthermore, in accordance with Art. 91 para. 5 CrimPC, a payment is deemed to be made within the time limit if the amount has been debited to a postal or bank account in Switzerland for the benefit of the criminal justice authority on the last day of the time limit at the latest. According to the provision, domestic bank accounts are thus treated in the same way as Swiss postal accounts. The deadline is met if the debit of the account associated with the processing of the payment order or the actual discharge of the person liable to pay has occurred on the last day of the deadline. However, the order for payment or the payment instruction to the bank or post office shall not be deemed to meet the deadline if the payment is not processed within the deadline. In this case, it is the responsibility of the person liable for payment to ensure that the bank or post office executes the payment order in accordance with its instructions within the deadline. The person liable to pay must accept responsibility for any fault on the part of the bank within the meaning of the case law on auxiliary persons with regard to any restoration of deadlines. If the payment is received on the account of a criminal authority after the expiry of the time limit, it shall set a time limit for the person liable to pay to prove the timely payment or debit. The burden of proof for compliance with the time limit shall be on the person liable to pay.
34 In our opinion, the relevant point in time for meeting the deadline in electronic payment transactions corresponds to that of electronic submissions in accordance with the above explanations. Accordingly, only payments made before the end of the last day of the deadline period (by 11:59 p.m.) have the effect of meeting the deadline.
C. Individual issues
35 The law does not explicitly regulate how payments from abroad or from foreign bank accounts are to be treated. Although not explicitly provided for, it must be possible to make payments from foreign bank accounts within the time limit, especially since a person involved in criminal proceedings cannot be expected to open an account in Switzerland in order to protect his or her rights. Particularly in the case of persons with foreign nationality or domicile abroad, this is likely to be possible only under difficult conditions or, under certain circumstances, not at all. The Federal Supreme Court therefore also accepts payments from abroad. However, in the case of payments from foreign accounts, the Federal Supreme Court - contrary to the rule for domestic accounts - does not focus on the debiting of the account of the person liable to pay, but rather on the receipt of the payment. Therefore, it is necessary that the requested amount was either credited to the account of the competent authority within the time limit or "at least reached the sphere of influence of the auxiliary person designated by the authority (bank or Swiss Post)".
36 Similarly, the provision does not comment on payments made to the criminal authority on the spot and does not state whether the authorities are obliged to accept cash or card payments. Given that the provision applies only to payments made at the request of the authority, the competent authority must have the infrastructure and resources to process payments. Accordingly, in our opinion, it must also be possible to hand over cash or - if the relevant infrastructure in the form of a payment terminal is available - electronic payment directly at the authority's premises. Of course, this does not protect abusive practices, such as the payment of a security deposit with 5-centime coins. However, for reasons of practicability and considerations of combating money laundering, an upper limit for cash payments should be permissible in individual cases.
37 Finally, the question arises as to whether Art. 91 para. 4 CrimPC should be applied by analogy to payments to the incompetent authority. In principle, this must be denied, especially since the person liable for payment must be explicitly requested by the competent authority to make payment to it and erroneous payments are thus unlikely. Moreover, the systematic position of para. 4, which refers to the preceding paras. 1-3, also speaks against this. A certain strictness is certainly justified by this, but legal seekers should not be deprived of the assessment of their request without necessity. Therefore, the suggestion of Stoll seems convincing, who sees the possibility of preserving the time limit at least in the case of an erroneous payment to the lower court in the appeal proceedings. If the authority itself has caused the error, this may not be to the detriment of the person liable to pay.
Bibliography
Amstutz Kathrin/Arnold Peter/Bühler Jacques, Kommentierung zu Art. 48 BGG, in: Niggli Marcel Alexander/Uebersax Peter/Wiprächtiger Hans/Kneubühler Lorenz [Hrsg.], Bundesgerichtsgesetz, Basler Kommentar, 3. Aufl., Basel 2018.
Benn Jurij, Kommentierung zu Art. 143 ZPO, in: Spühler Karl/Tenchio Luca/Infanger Dominik [Hrsg.], Zivilprozessordnung, Basler Kommentar, 3. Aufl., 2017 Basel.
Betschmann Simon, Elektronische Eingaben im Rahmen von Strafprozessen, in: Jusletter 15.8.2022.
Brüschweiler Daniela/Grünig Christa, Kommentierung zu Art. 91 StPO, in: Donatsch Andreas/Lieber Viktor/Summers Sarah/Wohlers Wolfgang [Hrsg.], Kommentar zur Schweizerischen Strafprozessordnung, 3. Aufl., Zürich 2020.
Guyan Peter/Huber Lukas, Elektronischer Rechtsverkehr nach VeÜ-ZSSchK, AJP 2011, S. 74–83.
Hafner Peter/Fischer Eliane, Kommentierung zu Art. 110 StPO, in: Niggli Marcel Alexander/Heer Marianne/Wiprächtiger Hans [Hrsg.], Schweizerische Strafprozessordnung/Jugendstrafprozessordnung, Basler Kommentar, 3. Aufl., Basel 2023.
Hauser Robert/Schweri Erhard, Kommentar zum zürcherischen Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz vom 13.6.1976 mit den seitherigen Änderungen, Zürich 2002.
Hoffmann-Nowotny Urs H./Brunner Katrin, Kommentierung zu Art. 143 ZPO, in: Oberhammer Paul/Domej Tanja/Haas Ulrich [Hrsg.], Kurzkommentar Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung, 3. Aufl., Basel 2021.
Koller Franz Thomas/Rey Matthias, Haftungsrisiken beim elektronischen Rechtsverkehr mit Gerichten und Behörden des Bundes, in: Jusletter 11.12.2006.
Meyer Christian, Eine Auslegeordnung der elektronischen Verfahrensinstitute des VwVG des Bundes, SJZ 117 (2021), S. 836–844.
Riedo Christof, Kommentierung zu Art. 91 StPO, in: Niggli Marcel Alexander/Heer Marianne/Wiprächtiger Hans [Hrsg.], Schweizerische Strafprozessordnung/Jugendstrafprozessordnung, Basler Kommentar, 3. Aufl., Basel 2023.
Riedo Christof/Gisi Diana, Auch vor der Zeit ist schon zu spät, BR 2013 S. 322–323.
Rüetschi David, Kommentierung zu Art. 33a SchKG, in: Staehelin Daniel/Bauer Thomas/Lorandi Franco [Hrsg.], Bundesgesetz über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs, Basler Kommentar, 3. Aufl., Basel 2021.
Staehelin Adrian, Kommentierung zu Art. 143 ZPO, in: Sutter-Somm Thomas/Hasenböhler Franz/Leuenberger Christoph [Hrsg.], Kommentar zur Schweizerischen Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO), 3. Aufl., Zürich 2016.
Stoll Daniel, Kommentierung zu Art. 91 StPO, in: Jeanneret Yvan/Kuhn André/Perrier Depeursinge Camille [Hrsg.], Code de procédure pénale suisse, Commentaire Romand, Basel 2019.
Materials
Botschaft zur schweizerischen Zivilprozessordnung vom 28.6.2006, BBl 2006 7221 ff., abrufbar unter https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/filestore/fedlex.data.admin.ch/eli/fga/2006/914/de/pdf-a/fedlex-data-admin-ch-eli-fga-2006-914-de-pdf-a.pdf, besucht am 21.9.2023.
Botschaft zur Totalrevision der Bundesrechtspflege vom 28.2.2001, BBl 2001 4202 ff., abrufbar unter https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/filestore/fedlex.data.admin.ch/eli/fga/2001/731/de/pdf-a/fedlex-data-admin-ch-eli-fga-2001-731-de-pdf-a.pdf, besucht am 21.9.2023.
Botschaft zur Totalrevision des Bundesgesetzes über die elektronische Signatur vom 15.1.2014, BBl 2014 1001 ff., abrufbar unter https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/filestore/fedlex.data.admin.ch/eli/fga/2014/171/de/pdf-a/fedlex-data-admin-ch-eli-fga-2014-171-de-pdf-a.pdf, besucht am 21.9.2023.
Antwort des Bundesrates vom 30.11.2012 zur Anfrage Kiener Nellen, 12.1096, abrufbar unter https://www.parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/amtliches-bulletin/amtliches-bulletin-die-verhandlungen?SubjectId=32858, besucht am 21.9.2023.