-
- Art. 3 FC
- 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. 73 PRA
- Art. 73a 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. Subject of the regulation
1 Swiss foundation law as set out in the CC differentiates between the law of the so-called “classical” foundations of Art. 80 et seq. CC and the statutory special forms of the family foundation and the ecclesiastical foundation. Art. 87 CC is a special provision that essentially defines the legal framework for family and ecclesiastical foundations by exempting these two special forms from both state foundation supervision (para. 1) and the obligation to appoint an auditor (para. 1bis).
II. Family foundations
A. Definition
2 A family foundation is characterized by the earmarking of assets for a family (or several families) for a specific purpose. The decisive factor is, on the one hand, the concentration of the group of beneficiaries on members of a particular family, which is based on the meaning of the foundation deed, the purpose and the beneficiaries. On the other hand, family foundations are characterized by the restriction of their purpose to the payment of the costs of the education, provision or support of family members or similar purposes, as well as by the prohibition of family entailments in accordance with Art. 335 para. 1 and para. 2 CC.
3 However, the law does not define the legal concept of a family foundation, which can lead to uncertainties in its qualification as a family foundation. There is already controversy over what is meant by a “family”. For example, there are different views on whether, in addition to persons related by blood, adoption, marriage or registered partnership, cohabiting partners or stepchildren, as well as children conceived through artificial insemination or surrogacy, may also be included, which would probably correspond to a contemporary understanding of family. The question of whether housemates, patients and staff may also be counted as family members is also controversial and is likely to have little practical relevance. Finally, it is controversial whether the founder himself may belong to the circle of family beneficiaries, which in our opinion should be affirmed. De lege ferenda the family foundation as a means of perpetuating assets for private benefit should generally be open to the favoring of “private individuals”.
4 If a foundation has beneficiaries who do not belong to a family (natural or legal persons) or if the foundation also pursues other purposes without a specific group of beneficiaries, such as charitable purposes, then it is not a pure family foundation, but a mixed foundation (see below N. 18 et seq.).
B. Legal Framework of the Purely Family Foundation
1. Principle
5 The legal framework for family foundations consists of provisions scattered throughout the law. In principle, the general foundation law of Art. 80 et seq. applies to family foundations, in particular for the form of establishment by public deed or disposition of property upon death (Art. 81) and the organization including the accounting obligation (Art. 83 and 83a). The application of the general foundation law of Art. 80 et seq. is modified for family foundations in certain respects, namely by Art. 335 (permissible purposes), Art. 87 (exemption from supervision and auditors) and Art. 88 para. 2 (dissolution of the family foundation by the court). Special provisions for family foundations also exist in the FusG, such as Art. 79 para. 3 FusG (public notarization of the merger agreement), Art. 84 FusG (appeal of the merger resolution to the court), Art. 85 FusG (responsibility of the supreme foundation body for measures of creditor and employee protection). Likewise, commercial registry law provides for special features, such as the fact that the entry in the commercial registry must include a reference to the family foundation status (Art. 95 para. 1 let. o CRO) and, in the case of a merger of family foundations, the acquiring foundation must keep the merger resolutions of the supreme foundation bodies of the participating foundations (Art. 140 para. 2 CRO) and, in the case of asset transfers, the excerpts from the minutes of the supreme management or administrative bodies of the participating legal entities regarding the conclusion of the transfer agreement (Art. 141 para. 2 CRO).
2. Permissible purposes
6 Family foundations may only be established for the purposes listed in Art. 335 para. 1, namely education, provision of means, support of family members or similar purposes (for details see OK ZGB-Brugger/Humbel, Art. 335 N. 20 et seq.).
3. Entry in the commercial register
7 Since January 1, 2016, all newly established family foundations must be registered in the commercial register in order to acquire their independent legal personality; an exemption from the obligation to register for family foundations, which was previously provided for in Art. 52 para. 2 aCC, has been deleted. The obligation to register in the commercial register also extends to existing family foundations. Existing family foundations had a period of five years (i.e. until December 31, 2020) to register with the relevant commercial registry offices. However, a family foundation established before January 1, 2016 that was not entered in the commercial register by the end of 2020 does not automatically lose its legal personality as a result, but remains legally valid.
8 The entry in the commercial register of family foundations, some of which are very old and were established many decades ago, has led to a variety of problems, proceedings and legal disputes in recent years, as original foundation deeds or other documents could often no longer be found or some amendments to the statutes made in the meantime were not accepted by the commercial registry offices. However, the biggest problem was that some commercial registry offices – exceeding their authority – declared family foundations originally null and void because their purpose (or parts of it) no longer corresponded to the current legal interpretation of Art. 335, para. 1. This original nullity (ex tunc) had a variety of legal and tax consequences for existing contracts and other performance relationships of the foundation. Many family foundations found themselves forced to establish their legal existence in costly proceedings before the civil judge.
4. Judicial supervision upon application instead of state supervision (Art. 87 para. 1 and para. 2)
a. General
9 Family foundations are not subject to any state supervisory authority (Art. 87 para. 1). Accordingly, family foundations are not required to submit either an annual report or a compensation report (see Art. 84b) to the supervisory authority. The exception to the state supervision requirement is justified by the fact that the family foundation is a private entity and has little contact with legal transactions. The argument that family foundations are rarely involved in legal transactions is, however, as simplistic as it is wrong. The authors are aware of many family foundations that have large assets, including real estate, and are involved in legal transactions to the same extent as other legal entities under private law. The exception from state supervision is correct because, in the case of family foundations, the family members involved (above all the actual and potential beneficiaries) control the conduct of the foundation and the actions of the foundation's bodies and can appeal to the civil court in the event of (potential) misconduct. While the solution of the Swiss legislator to resolve the control deficit typical of family foundations by means of application-related governance of the private foundation participants is to be endorsed, the that the current law does not recognize any legally enshrined rights of inspection, information or disclosure for the beneficiaries of a family foundation, although the arbitrary refusal of information can at least be challenged in court. The exemption of family foundations from state supervision is not without controversy and some legal scholars are calling for such state supervision for family foundations as well.
10 Pursuant to Art. 87, para. 2, the court decides on objections of a private-law nature (in particular in the presence of subjective private rights against the foundation, for example as a beneficiary or creditor), and thus exercises application-related supervision of the family foundation. This means that the civil court does not decide ex officio, but only upon application, and thus assumes selective supervision in disputed cases. In the area of dispute, the court acts as a supervisory authority with the corresponding powers, so that Art. 83d Para. 1–3 and Art. 84 Para. 2 are to be applied mutatis mutandis. The functions of the foundation supervisory authority complaint are replaced by actions for performance, injunctive relief, declaratory relief and reorganization. A one-month period is assumed for contesting foundation board resolutions, by analogy with Art. 75.
b. Proceedings
11 While the principle of party disposition applies to the initiation of proceedings under Art. 87, para. 2, i.e. the court only acts at the request of the parties and within the scope of the legal protection sought, the principle of official action applies when proceedings are initiated if the existence of the foundation is in dispute. Legal recourse to the court is mandatory and cannot be excluded by statute.
c. Arbitration agreement
12 The admissibility of arbitration agreements integrated into foundation statutes is controversial, but in our opinion it should be affirmed in any case where the existence of the family foundation is not at issue, which, due to the prohibition of self- and under Art. 88 para. 2 CC is not subject to the disposition of the parties and is therefore not arbitrable within the meaning of Art. 354 CPC.
5. Changes in the purpose and organization of family foundations
13 The law contains no provisions regarding changes in the purpose or organization of family foundations. In particular, there is no authority that could order changes in the purpose or organization within the meaning of Art. 85, 86 or 86b, since family foundations lack a supervisory or conversion authority in terms of legal concept, which is why there is a genuine gap in the law. This raises the question of whether the governing bodies of a family foundation can amend the statutes on their own authority or whether the civil court must order or approve an amendment to the statutes. In legal doctrine, different views are held on this, with the prevailing view being that the board of trustees has the authority to amend the statutes. In a recent decision, the Federal Administrative Court ruled that the consent of the civil court is required for amendments to the statutes, with the result that an amendment to the statutes made by the foundation's own governing bodies (in this case, a change of purpose with a view to the pending entry of the family foundation in the commercial register) was found to be invalid. In earlier rulings, the Federal Court had clearly decided the question of the authority to amend the foundation charter in favor of the foundation board. In a later ruling, however, the question of authority was left open (for no apparent reason), and in a further ruling the authority of the foundation board was only implicitly affirmed.
14 According to the view represented here, the genuine legal gap in the purpose and organizational changes in family foundations is to be closed by analogy: In the non-contentious area, the supreme foundation body is authorized to amend the foundation charter independently, with regard to amendments of purpose by analogy with Art. 86 and with regard to amendments of organization by analogy with Art. 85 (significant amendment of organization) and Art. 86b (insignificant amendment of organization). The changes must be made in the form of a public notarization. The public notarization of changes to the statutes at least goes some way to compensating for the lack of a supervisory authority in the interests of protecting the public. Accordingly, there is no scope for analogous application of Art. 86c, which came into force on January 1, 2024, according to which the decision of the competent authority is sufficient for classical foundations. It is the responsibility of the foundation's governing bodies to check the requirements for amending the articles of association and to pass a corresponding resolution. Parties involved in the foundation, such as the other foundation bodies, beneficiaries or the founder, can have the amendment of the articles of association reviewed by the court within the scope of their petition-related supervision in accordance with Art. 87 para. 2. The court can correct the amendment to the articles of association and/or examine the possible liability of the foundation's bodies.
15 It is recommended that the details of the organization of the family foundation and the order of beneficiaries be set out in regulations. Unlike the foundation deed, regulations can be issued and modified in accordance with the procedure laid down in the deed. In most cases, the authority to enact and amend regulations is assigned to a foundation body that decides by majority vote. However, it is also fundamentally permissible to assign this authority to other persons (such as the descendants of the founder or even the founder himself or herself). However, regulations may not contradict the provisions of the foundation deed. In the somewhat undifferentiated opinion of the Federal Court, regulations that grant beneficiaries rights to the foundation's assets that go beyond the limits of Art. 335 CC result in the invalidity of the family foundation.
6. No reservation on changes to the purpose and organization pursuant to Art. 86a
16 According to the prevailing view, pure family foundations are not entitled to the reservation of the right to amend the purpose and organization of the foundation under Art. 86a. This is justified by a qualified silence on the part of the legislator in the legislative materials, according to which the introduction of a reservation of purpose (the reservation of organizational change was only introduced on January 1, 2024) for family foundations would have had to be made by means of a special provision. Of course, the legislator overlooked the fact that there is basically no genuine law for the family foundation, but that the special provisions of Art. 87, Art. 88 Para. 2 and Art. 335 of the general foundation law of Art. 80 et seq. only selectively restrict or modify, which means that, in the opinion expressed here, no special provisions would have been needed to extend the reservation of amendments to family foundations as well. Since the founders of family foundations may also have a legitimate need to amend the purpose and organization, it would be desirable de lege ferenda to extend Art. 86a CC to family foundations as well. It is perfectly permissible to convert a classical foundation into a family foundation by means of a reservation of purpose in accordance with Art. 86a (subject to tax-exempt foundations, where the new purpose must also be tax-exempt in accordance with Art. 86a para. 2).
7. No auditor requirement (para. 1bis)
17 Pursuant to Art. 87 para. 1bis, family foundations are exempt from the requirement to appoint an auditor. The exception to the auditor requirement applies generally, is based on the legal form, and – in contrast to other legal forms such as associations or stock corporations – is not tied to size criteria such as balance sheet total, sales revenue or number of full-time employees. This exception to the auditor requirement is also justified by the legislator on the grounds that family foundations are private in nature and rarely participate in legal transactions. While the private character of a family foundation justifies an exemption from the state supervision requirement, this applies only to a limited extent to an exemption from the statutory auditor requirement. All parties involved have an interest in an independent audit of the annual financial statements of the family foundation. The founder is free to introduce an auditor by means of a corresponding provision in the statutes, which often happens in practice. It would be recommendable de lege ferenda to consider the introduction of a general obligation for family foundations to appoint auditors, not least in order to meet the constantly growing demands for transparency and to counter the accusations that family foundations are prone to abuse.
C. Mixed family foundations
18 If a foundation has multiple purposes (which is perfectly permissible), this may constitute a so-called mixed foundation. Mixed foundations are foundations that have the purposes of different foundation types. If a family foundation is established not only for the benefit of members of a family, but also has other natural or legal persons as beneficiaries or pursues other purposes, such as those of a charitable nature, a mixture of different foundation types arises and a mixed family foundation comes into existence. According to the view represented here, a mixed family foundation also exists if the other purposes are merely of a subordinate nature.
19 The legal framework of a mixed foundation is determined by the types of foundation that are mixed. It is conceivable that a family foundation may pursue classic foundation purposes, ecclesiastical purposes or staff welfare purposes. Whether a mixed foundation actually exists can often only be determined by interpreting the foundation's purpose: It may be that a purported genuine sub-purpose actually turns out to be a condition, special right or substitute provision for how the foundation's assets are to be used if the primary purpose can no longer be fulfilled (for example, if a family becomes extinct and the foundation is supposed to pursue charitable purposes).
20 If various purposes are pursued in succession (which is also permissible without further ado within the scope of the founder's freedom), a successive foundation exists. According to the view presented here, a change of system without a conversion in the sense of Art. 86, i.e. in particular also to supervision by the foundation supervisory authority, only occurs when the successive purpose occurs (e.g. when the time has expired or when the conditions specified by the founder have been met). In the absence of a legal basis and given the uncertainty as to whether the successive purpose is actually being pursued, there is no room for anticipated supervision of mixed family foundations.
21 The legal framework of the mixed foundation differs from that of the pure family foundation:
The mixed family foundation is subject to overall foundation supervision; Art. 87 para. 1 CC does not apply. Instead, Art. 84 applies, with the consequence that the foundation must submit an annual report and a compensation report to the competent authority, which also covers the part of the activity that would be classified as a family foundation.
Amendments to the deeds are ordered by the supervisory authority (Art. 85, 86, 86b), although since January 1, 2024, no public notarization is required for this (Art. 86c).
The foundation participants (which also includes beneficiaries of the family-related sub-purpose) are in principle entitled to file a foundation supervisory complaint pursuant to Art. 84 para. 3, whereby, in the opinion represented here, the supervisory authority should continue to examine private-law objections (in particular questions regarding the amount of distributions) only with restraint.
The foundation must appoint an auditor if the conditions of Art. 83b CC are met; Art. 87 para. 1bis does not apply.
In the view presented here, mixed foundations should have the right to reserve the right to amend the purpose and organization in accordance with Art. 86a, at least with regard to the classic sub-purpose.
It can be assumed that the authorities have the power to dissolve a mixed family foundation (Art. 88 para. 1).
III. Ecclesiastical foundations
22 The CC does not define an ecclesiastical foundation. Accordingly, there are different descriptions in the doctrine. The Federal Supreme Court's case law requires that, in order for a foundation to be considered ecclesiastical, it must, on the one hand, pursue an ecclesiastical purpose and, on the other hand, have an organic link with a religious community. If there is no organic link to a religious community or if the purposes cannot be qualified as ecclesiastical within the meaning of Art. 87 para. 1, a classic foundation is deemed to exist, which is subject to the state supervisory authority.
23 A foundation purpose is ecclesiastical if it directly or indirectly serves faith in God or concerns the connection with the transcendental, for example by maintaining and financing persons with ecclesiastical offices or ecclesiastical institutions or by promoting ecclesiastical doctrine or ultimately faith (which can occur through the training of dignitaries or the financing of research, preservation and dissemination of religious teachings).
24 Even more than the purpose, the special treatment of ecclesiastical foundations is based on their organic connection with a religious community: in the context of the codification of civil law under positive law, it became clear – albeit only at the request of the Catholic-conservative cantons of Obwalden, Zug and Lucerne – that many significant assets and properties of ecclesiastical or religious origin (especially bishoprics, sanatoriums, parishes) were held through foundation-like institutions with their own legal personality, particularly in Catholic circles. These foundation-like assets were usually – in some cases for several centuries – incorporated into the legal and control structure of the respective church community or its representatives and authorities. Consequently, they were already subject to their own, namely ecclesiastical, supervision, which made a superordinate, “duplicated” state supervision redundant. Not least out of respect for the autonomy of the church, state supervision of church foundations was withdrawn (Art. 87 para. 1). Despite the diverging reasons for the waiver of state supervision of foundations, church foundations and family foundations are covered by the law together. The exclusion from state supervision is mandatory; it is not at the discretion of a founder to subject the ecclesiastical foundation to state supervision.
25 An ecclesiastical foundation is only considered to be organically linked to a religious community if the latter has the possibility of exerting influence and a right of supervision over the foundation's activities. Since the waiver of state supervision of ecclesiastical foundations is based on the fact that ecclesiastical supervision already exists through the organic connection with a religious community, the question arises as to what requirements ecclesiastical supervision must meet in order to justify the waiver of state supervision. In particular, it is controversial whether the internal ecclesiastical supervision must be equivalent or merely comparable to state supervision. In particular, the assessment is difficult when the independence of the supervision of the ecclesiastical foundation is at issue, for example because persons who are also part of the religious community organically connected with the foundation or even serve on the foundation board itself participate in the supervision, but withdraw from the supervisory decisions. Although recusal rules help to resolve conflicts of interest in individual cases, they cannot permanently compensate for a lack of organizational, personnel and factual independence between the supervisory body and the foundation. The decision on the independence of the supervisory body – and thus the question of whether a church foundation is exempt from state supervision – is correctly a legal question that is beyond the jurisdiction of the commercial registry authorities. If there is doubt as to whether Art. 87 para. 1 applies to a particular foundation, the state supervisory authority will decide on this initially.
26 The remaining legal framework of ecclesiastical foundations is similar to that of family foundations. Regarding the exemption from the statutory audit requirement (Art. 87 para. 1bis) and the exception to the reservation of the right to amend the purpose and organization pursuant to Art. 86a, reference can be made to the above.
27 Changes to the purpose and organization within the meaning of Art. 85, 86 and 86b are the responsibility of the ecclesiastical supervisory authorities, which are also responsible for supervisory measures (see Art. 84 para. 2). Changes to the purpose or organization are permissible if the substantive requirements of Art. 86, 86, or 86b are met. In the event of disputes under private law, the civil court has jurisdiction over church foundations (Art. 87 para. 2), while church supervision has jurisdiction in non-contentious matters. The dissolution of a church foundation is carried out by the court (Art. 88 para. 2).
28 Ecclesiastical foundations can also qualify as mixed foundations if they also pursue traditional purposes or – which is rare – family-related purposes or personnel welfare purposes. In this case, the legal consequences must be evaluated depending on the specific mixed form. As with mixed family foundations, an ecclesiastical foundation with partial traditional purposes is subject overall to the state supervisory authority and must appoint auditors.
Bibliography
Arter Oliver, Die schweizerische Familienstiftung, in: Peter V. Kunz/Florian S. Jörg/Oliver Arter (Hrsg.), Entwicklungen im Gesellschaftsrecht VII, Bern 2012, S. 107 ff. (zit. Arter, Familienstiftung).
Brugger Lukas, Die gemischte Stiftung – Die Stiftung zur Verfolgung unterschiedlicher Zwecke im Lichte des schweizerischen ZGB und des österreichischen PSG, Schriften zum Stiftungsrecht, Band 12, Basel 2019 (zit. Brugger, Gemischte Stiftung).
Brugger Lukas, Familienphilanthropie – Familienstiftungen mit gemischten Zwecken, in: Thomas Sprecher/Lukas von Orelli (Hrsg.) Familienstiftungen – neue Perspektiven, 2024, S. 135 ff. (zit. Brugger, Familienphilanthropie).
Eichenberger Lukas/Leu Daniel, Nichtigkeit und Eintragungsverweigerung - Hürden bei der Eintragung alter Familienstiftungen ins Handelsregister, 2024, S. 84 ff. in: Thomas Sprecher/Lukas von Orelli (Hrsg.) Familienstiftungen – neue Perspektiven (im Erscheinen).
Grüninger Harold, in: Geiser Thomas/Fountoulakis Christiana (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Zivilgesetzbuch I, Art. 1–456 ZGB, 7. Aufl., Basel 2022.
Grüninger Harold, Aktuelles aus dem Stiftungs- und Gemeinnützigkeitsbereich – Neue Stiftungen, Literatur, Entscheide, successio 2 (2024), S. 167 ff.
Hausheer Heinz/Aebi-Müller Regina Elisabeth, Das Personenrecht des Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuches, Bern 2020.
Jakob Dominique, in: Büchler Andrea/Jakob Dominique (Hrsg.), Kurzkommentar ZGB, Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch, 2. Aufl., Basel 2018.
Jakob Dominique, Was darf eine Familienstiftung (noch) tun? in: Thomas Sprecher/Lukas von Orelli (Hrsg.) Familienstiftungen – neue Perspektiven, 2024, S. 117 ff. (zit. Jakob, Neue Perspektiven)
Jakob Dominique/Humbel Claude, Die Eintragung existierender Familienstiftungen. Ein Blick auf die bestehende Registerpraxis und eine Besprechung des Urteils BVGer B-951/2020 vom 16.8.2021, SJZ 2022, S. 736 ff.
Jakob Dominique/Humbel Claude, Die Eintragung existierender Familienstiftungen und die Änderungskompetenz des Stiftungsrates, Zugleich eine Besprechung des Schweizer Bundesverwaltungsgerichts B-951/2020 vom 16.8.2021, npoR 2022, S. 119 ff.
Jakob Dominique, Reformen im Stiftungsrecht – eine Agenda Zugleich ein Beitrag des Zentrums für Stiftungsrecht an der Universität Zürich zum Vernehmlassungsverfahren der parlamentarischen Initiative Luginbühl (14.470), Jusletter 20.8.2020.
Leu Daniel/Gabrieli Daniel, Statutenänderung bei Familienstiftungen, in: Peter Breitschmid/Paul Eitel/Alexandra Jungo (Hrsg.), Der letzte Wille, seine Vollstreckung und seine Vollstrecker – Festschrift für Hans Rainer Künzle, 2021, S. 277 ff.
Liatowitsch Manuel/Fischer Eliane, Stiftungen und Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit in der Schweiz, in: Francesco A. Schurr (Hrsg.), Wandel im materiellen Stiftungsrecht und grenzüberschreitende Rechtsdurchsetzung durch Schiedsgerichte, Zürich/Basel/Genf 2013, S. 229 ff.
Liver Peter, Rezension zu Riemers Kommentar zum Stiftungsrecht, ZBJV 112 (1976), S. 315 ff.
Piotet Denis, in: Pichonnaz Pascal/Foëx Bénédict (Hrsg.), Commentaire Romand, Code civil I, Basel 2010.
Riemer Hans Michael, Die Schiedsfähigkeit von Klagen des ZGB, in: Meier/Riemer/Weimar (Hrsg.), Recht und Rechtsdurchsetzung: Festschrift für Hans Ulrich Walder zum 65. Geburtstag, Zürich 1994, S. 371–383 (zit. Riemer, Schiedsfähigkeit).
Riemer Hans Michael, Stämpflis Handkommentar, Vereins- und Stiftungsrecht (Art. 60–89bis ZGB) mit den Allgemeinen Bestimmungen zu den juristischen Personen (Art. 52–59 ZGB), Bern 2012.
Riemer Hans Michael, Berner Kommentar, Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch, Die juristischen Personen, Die Stiftungen, Art. 80–89c ZGB, 2. Aufl., Bern 2020 (zit. BK-Riemer).
Röllin Andrea, Kirchliche Stiftungen – im Besonderen die privatrechtlichen i.S. von Art. 87 i.V.m. Art. 80 ff. ZGB, Diss. Zürich/St. Gallen 2010.
Schweizer Rudolf, Die Beaufsichtigung der Stiftungen nach Schweizer Recht, Diss. Zürich, 1927
Sprecher Thomas, Stiftungsrecht in a nutshell, 2. Aufl. Zürich 2023.
Sprecher Thomas, Vom Recht des Stifters, „seine“ Stiftung auf den Kopf zu stellen, Jusletter vom 13.3.2023.
Vez Parisima, Fondation, lacunes et droit désirable. Une analyse critique et systématique des articles 89 à 89, Bern 2004.
Vez Parisima, in: Pichonnaz Pascal/Foëx Bénédict/Fountoulakis Christiana (Hrsg.), Commentaire Romand, Code civil I, 2. Aufl., Basel 2023.