-
- 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. Background
A. Nature
1 Of the various types of procedure covered by the CPC, ordinary procedure is the basic one. Consequently, it also applies by analogy to the other types of procedure (art. 219 CPC). The other types of procedure are the simplified procedure (art. 243 ff CPC) and the summary procedure (art. 248 ff CPC). The provisions relating to these procedures are generally less detailed, and confine themselves to regulating exceptions to the ordinary procedure system. It should be noted that the law introduces certain special procedures in family law (art. 271 ff CPC). These do not qualify as a type of procedure in their own right, but rather contain derogations to the regimes laid down for ordinary, simplified and summary procedures.
2 The CPC thus determines the scope of each type of procedure. In particular, this means that mixing different types of procedure in the same trial is prohibited (cf. in particular art. 90 let. b and 224 para. 1 CPC). Similarly, in principle, the law does not allow for a change in the type of proceedings during the course of a case (cf. in particular art. 227 para. 1 CPC). Certain mechanisms allow the applicable type of procedure to be maintained, even when the amount in dispute fluctuates during the course of proceedings and the limit of art. 243 para. 1 CPC is crossed in one direction or the other (cf. in particular art. 85 para. 1 2nd sentence and 227 para. 3 CPC). Case law does, however, make an exception where a counterclaim for a negative finding is lodged in response to a partial action (art. 86 CPC); in this case, the simplified procedure may be switched to the ordinary procedure.
3 Since civil proceedings are governed by public law, the provisions of the CPC are mandatory. Consequently, the type of procedure applicable to any given claim is not left to the free choice of the parties. The situation in which the plaintiff opts for protection in clear cases (art. 257 CPC), and thus for summary proceedings (art. 248 let. b CPC), remains reserved. The parties can, however, indirectly influence the applicable procedure by virtue of the principle of disposition (art. 58 para. 1 CPC) and the rules on the amount in dispute (art. 91 ff and 243 para. 1 CPC). Thus, the plaintiff may choose to assert only a part of his claim, below CHF 30,000, by bringing a partial action (art. 86 CPC). It is also possible to combine several claims (art. 90 CPC), or to waive the right to do so, which generally has an impact on the amount in dispute (art. 93 para. 2 CPC). Finally, certain rules relating to the amount in dispute allow the parties to agree on the amount (art. 91 para. 2 CPC). Sometimes, it is the plaintiff alone who can provisionally determine the amount in dispute in order to determine the applicable procedure (art. 85 para. 1 1st sentence CPC). The parties must not, however, engage in manifest exaggeration, at the risk of being accused of abuse of rights (art. 52 CPC).
B. Characteristics
4 Ordinary procedure is the expression of the classic civil trial. It is essentially left to the initiative of the parties. The cardinal principles of civil procedure - the maxim of debate (art. 55 para. 1 CPC) and of disposition (art. 58 para. 1 CPC) - apply to a large extent, or more precisely, in a less attenuated manner than in summary or simplified proceedings. The court's activity is confined to the formal conduct of the proceedings. It has considerable discretion in this respect. It can thus decide to order a second exchange of pleadings (art. 225 CPC), one or more preliminary hearings (art. 226 CPC) or summon the parties directly to the main hearing (art. 228 ff CPC).
5 Unlike simplified or summary proceedings, ordinary proceedings are essentially conducted in writing. Oral proceedings play a secondary role, but are nonetheless present. The court may thus order investigative debates (art. 226 CPC) or organize a second round at the opening of the main debates (art. 229 para. 1 CPC), during which the parties plead twice in principle (art. 228 and 232 CPC). In addition, the requirements relating to the form and content of the parties' pleadings are stricter. In particular, it is not possible to dictate an application on the record, unlike in simplified and summary proceedings (cf. art. 244 and 252 CPC). Finally, the court's power of interpellation is more limited in ordinary proceedings (art. 56 CPC) than in simplified proceedings (art. 247 para. 1 CPC).
6 Ordinary proceedings are rightly described as demanding. It is all the more so because any failure to comply with the rules laid down by law can have serious consequences. Thus, by virtue of the strict application of the maxim of the debates, a fact that is not or poorly alleged, or is alleged late, is generally not retained, which may lead to the rejection of the claim on the merits. The legislator considers that the ordinary procedure is designed for private commercial law cases with a high value in dispute. For this reason, the parties are generally assisted by a professional representative, although they are not obliged to do so.
II. Scope of application
A. Negative scope
7 The scope of the ordinary procedure is mainly defined in negative terms. The ordinary procedure is subsidiary to the simplified and summary procedures. Consequently, the ordinary procedure is applicable to claims for which the simplified procedure (art. 243 ff CPC), the summary procedure (art. 248 ff CPC) and the divorce procedure (art. 274 ff CPC) do not apply.
8 The ordinary procedure therefore applies to claims that are not subject to the simplified procedure due to their nature. These are exhaustively listed in art. 243 para. 2 CPC. To these must be added proceedings relating to children in family law cases (art. 295 ff and 307a CPC). Ordinary proceedings only concern claims with a value in dispute of over CHF 30,0000, in accordance with art. 243 para. 1 of the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure. The amount in dispute is determined in accordance with art. 91 ff CPC. In this respect, the calculation of the amount in dispute precedes the determination of the applicable procedure. Thus, in the event of an objective accumulation of actions, the value of the various claims should first be added up in accordance with art. 93 para. 2 of the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure, and the procedure applicable to the result should then be determined in accordance with art. 243 para. 1 of the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure.
9 Ordinary procedure does not apply to cases subject to summary procedure. These include clear-cut cases (art. 257 CPC), the application of which depends on the will of the petitioner, "mise à ban" (art. 258 et seq. CPC), provisional measures (art. 261 et seq. CPC) and "jurisdiction gracieuse" (art. 248 let. e CPC). In addition, the law prescribes the application of summary proceedings (art. 248 let. a CPC). The law lists these cases in art. 249 to 251a CPC. However, this list is not exhaustive, as the Federal Court has already extended it to one or other of these cases.
10 It is up to the court to determine the applicable procedure, as the plaintiff is not obliged to indicate the applicable procedure in the claim. However, compliance with the applicable procedure remains a condition of admissibility which the court examines ex officio (art. 60 CPC). In this respect, it checks that the conditions relating to the form (art. 130 CPC) and content (art. 221, 244 and 252 CPC) of the document are met, or that the document does not lead to the simultaneous application of several types of procedure (cf. in particular art. 90 let. b or 224 para. 1 CPC). In the event of doubt or dispute as to the applicable procedure, the court may issue a ruling on the matter. Such a decision is generally referred to as another decision within the meaning of art. 319 let. b CPC, or even as a final decision (art. 236 CPC) or incidental decision (art. 237 CPC) if the alleged defect is likely to lead to inadmissibility of the claim. If the claim is declared inadmissible because it has not been lodged in accordance with the prescribed procedure, art. 63 CPC gives the plaintiff a second chance to lodge a new claim within one month.
B. Positive scope of application
11 In certain situations, however, the scope of ordinary procedure is determined positively. This applies first and foremost to disputes of a non-property nature. A claim is said to be non-economic when it is of an ideal nature and does not concern a person's assets or is not closely linked to them. As they have no value in dispute, these disputes are in principle subject to ordinary procedure, unless the summary or simplified procedure applies due to the nature of the claim (cf. art. 243 para. 2 and 295 CPC). It should be noted that many non-economic cases are decided in summary or simplified proceedings by virtue of their nature, which limits the scope of this case law. Examples include disputes to put an end to violence, threats or harassment (art. 243 para. 2 let. b CPC) or concerning the exercise of a right of reply (art. 249 let. a ch. 2 CPC).
12 The second case in which the scope of ordinary procedure is defined positively concerns disputes subject to the jurisdiction of a single cantonal instance (art. 5 f. and 8 CPC). In such cases, the ordinary procedure applies irrespective of the amount in dispute, and the simplified procedure is in principle excluded (art. 243 para. 3 CPC). There are, however, a number of exceptions to this system. First of all, it is not out of the question for the summary procedure to apply before a single cantonal authority. This is the case, for example, when a commercial court is called upon to pronounce provisional measures (art. 6 para. 5 and 248 let. d CPC) or when it has to decide on a claim within the framework of protection in clear cases (art. 257 CPC). Furthermore, the Commercial Court is never competent to hear a case to which the simplified procedure applies by virtue of art. 243 para. 2 CPC. Finally, it should be remembered that for disputes relating to supplementary health insurance (art. 7 CPC), the simplified procedure applies irrespective of the amount in dispute (art. 243 para. 2 let. f CPC).
III. Application to other procedures
A. Application to other types of proceedings
13 Art. 219 CPC provides that the provisions relating to ordinary proceedings apply by analogy to other types of proceedings, unless the law provides otherwise. The scope of art. 219 CPC thus depends on the normative density with which the legislator has regulated the different types of procedure. The reasoning is to first ascertain whether the provisions relating to the type of procedure in question provide for anything, and if not, to apply the topical provision relating to ordinary procedure. It should be noted that the latter can also be applied as a result of cascade reasoning. Thus, in proceedings concerning measures to protect the marital union, the provisions on ordinary procedure can only be applied insofar as art. 272 et seq. CPC first, and then those of summary proceedings, do not resolve the problem in question.
14 The application of ordinary procedure provisions to other types of proceedings is not, however, without limits. Firstly, art. 219 CPC states that they apply unless otherwise provided by law. These are mainly provisions relating to other types of procedure. Other laws, in particular the LP (e.g. art. 84 para. 2 LP) but also substantive private law, may also provide for exceptions to the rules on ordinary procedure.
15 Secondly, the rules of ordinary procedure can only be applied by analogy if they are consistent with the nature of the proceedings in question. In this respect, the Federal Court considers that art. 223 para. 1 CPC, which requires an additional time limit to be set in the event of failure to file a response, cannot be applied when the requested party does not file determinations in release proceedings. Determining which provisions of the ordinary procedure are compatible with the summary or simplified procedure is not always an easy task. However, this power is not unlimited. In case of doubt, in our opinion, it is best to revert to the rule and apply the provisions on ordinary procedure by analogy.
16 The application by analogy of the provisions on ordinary procedure can be achieved by a direct repetition of the provision concerned. Thus, the provisions relating to the obligation to draw up minutes (art. 235 CPC), the notification of decisions (art. 236 ff CPC) or the termination of proceedings without a decision (art. 241 ff CPC) apply by analogy to simplified and summary proceedings. A maiore minus, the court may also attenuate or adapt the rule, in particular to make it compatible with the nature of the applicable procedure. The Federal Court has ruled, for example, that in summary proceedings, the parties cannot assume that they will be guaranteed a second opportunity to speak, but that they can put forward new facts and evidence without restriction when the court orders a second exchange of pleadings or a hearing.
B. Other special procedures
17 In addition to the various types of proceedings, the question arises as to the extent to which art. 219 CPC applies to stages of proceedings that precede or follow the application of ordinary procedure, as well as to civil proceedings in which the CPC is not applicable, or is applicable only as suppletive law.
18 The legal remedies available under the CPC are appeal (art. 308 ff CPC), recourse (art. 319 ff CPC), revision (art. 328 ff CPC) and interpretation and rectification (art. 334 CPC). These procedures are governed by their own regulations. The legislator has abandoned the idea of referring to the rules governing first-instance proceedings. In the view of the Federal Court, this suggests that the legislature did not intend the rules of first instance procedure to apply to legal remedies. It is therefore only when the rules on legal remedies are silent that an application by analogy of the rules on first-instance procedure can come into play. The Federal Court has thus applied art. 221 and 244 of the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure by analogy to determine the content of the appeal brief, since art. 311 of the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure is silent on the subject. On the other hand, in our view it is not possible to interpret the provisions on legal remedies extensively by applying art. 219 CPC.
19 The conciliation procedure, although a mandatory prerequisite (art. 197 CPC), is not part of the ordinary procedure that begins with the filing of the claim (art. 220 CPC). As with the legal remedies, the law regulates the conciliation procedure in detail. Conciliation proceedings have other aims than first-instance proceedings, namely to achieve an amicable resolution of the dispute in a less formal setting than in ordinary proceedings (art. 201 para. 1 CPC). Consequently, the rules of ordinary procedure are mainly applied when art. 197 et seq. of the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure are incomplete. This is generally the case when the conciliation authority acts "like a court" by issuing a ruling of inadmissibility or a decision (art. 212 CPC). In the latter case, however, the conciliation authority is obliged to apply the rules of simplified procedure first, followed by those of ordinary procedure in the alternative (art. 219 CPC).
20 Finally, the application of ordinary procedure does not necessarily follow from the CPC. In principle, it applies before the Federal Patent Court (art. 27 FLPG). Lastly, it may apply, as suppletive cantonal law, in appeal proceedings against decisions of the child and adult protection authority (art. 450f CC). On the other hand, the PCF - and not the CPC - applies in the rare cases where the Federal Court rules as a single instance (art. 120 para. 3 LTF). In such cases, however, the provisions of the CPC may apply in the alternative.
Bibliography
Brugger Daniel, Der Tatsachenvortrag «zu Beginn» der Hauptverhandlung (Art. 229 Abs. 2 ZPO), PCEF 2019 p. 22 ss.
Grobéty Laurent, Le cumul objectif d’actions en procédure civile suisse, Genève et al. 2018.
Grobéty Laurent/Heinzmann Michel, Commentaires de l'art. 85 et art. 91 CPC, in : Chabloz Isabelle/Dietschy-Martenet Patricia/Heinzmann Michel (édit.), Petit commentaire CPC, Code de procédure civile, Bâle 2020.
Heinzmann Michel/Herrmann-Heiniger Christelle, Commentaire de l'art. 219 CPC, in : Chabloz Isabelle/Dietschy-Martenet Patricia/Heinzmann Michel (édit.), Petit commentaire CPC, Code de procédure civile, Bâle 2020.
Heinzmann Michel, La procédure simplifiée – Une émanation du procès civil social, thèse d’habilitation Fribourg, Genève et al. 2018.
Hofmann David/Lüscher Christian, Le Code de procédure civile, 2e éd., Berne 2015.
Hohl Fabienne, Procédure civile, tome I : Introduction et théorie générale, 2e éd., Berne 2016.
Hurni Christoph, Zum Rechtsmittelgegenstand im Schweizerischen Zivilprozessrecht, Berne 2018.
Killias Laurent, Kommentierung zu Art. 219 ZPO, in : Hausherr Heinz/Walter Hans Peter (édit.), Berner Kommentar, Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung, Art. 1–352 und Art. 400–406 ZPO, Berne 2012.
Leuenberger Christoph, Kommentierung zu Art. 219 ZPO, in : Sutter-Somm Thomas/Hasenböhler Franz/Leuenberger Christoph (édit), Zürcher Kommentar, Kommentar zur Schweizerischen Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO), 3e éd., Zurich 2016 (cité : ZK-Leuenberger, art. 219 CPC)
Leuenberger Christoph, Die Bestimmungen über das ordentliche Verfahren gelten sinngemäss für sämtliche andere Verfahren, soweit das Gesetz nichts anderes bestimmt (Art. 219 ZPO), in : Fankhauser Roland et al. (édit.), Festschrift für Professor Thomas Sutter-Somm, Zurich 2016, p. 379 ss (cité : Leuenberger, Bestimmungen).
Pahud Eric, in : Brunner Alexander/Gasser Dominik/Schwander Ivo (édit.), Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung ZPO, 2e éd., Zurich et al. 2016.
Richers Roman/Naegeli Georg, Kommentierung zu Art. 219 ZPO, in : Oberhammer Paul/Domej Tanja/Haas Ulrich (édit.), Kurzkommentar – Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO), 3e éd., Bâle 2021.
Sterchi Martin, Kommentierung zu Art. 93 ZPO, in : Hausherr Heinz/Walter Hans Peter (édit.), Berner Kommentar, Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung, Art. 1–352 und Art. 400–406 ZPO, Berne 2012.
Tappy Denis, Commentaires de l'art. 219 et art. 226 CPC, in : Bohnet François et al. (édit), Commentaire romand, Code de procédure civile, 2e éd., Bâle 2018.
Trezzini Francesco, Commento dall'art. 219 CPC, in : Trezzini Francesco et al. (édit), Commentario pratico al Codice di diritto processuale civile svizzero (CPC), 2 vol., Pregassona 2017.
Willisegger Daniel, Kommentierung zu Art. 219 ZPO, in : Infanger Dominik/Spühler Karl/Tenchio Luca (édit.), Basler Kommentar, Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO), 3e éd., Bâle 2017.
Zingg Simon, Kommentierung zu Art. 59 ZPO, in : Hausherr Heinz/Walter Hans Peter (édit.), Berner Kommentar, Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung, Art. 1–352 und Art. 400–406 ZPO, Berne 2012.