Kommentar zu Art. 146 OR

Ein Kom­men­tar von Jean-Pas­cal Stoll

Her­aus­ge­ge­ben von Chris­toph Hur­ni und Mir­jam Eggen

Zitier­vor­schlag

Jean-Pas­cal Stoll, Kom­men­tar zu Art. 146 OR, in: Chris­toph Hur­ni / Mir­jam Eggen (Hrsg.), Online­kom­men­tar zum Obli­ga­tio­nen­recht, https://onlinekommentar.ch/or146/, 1. Aufl., N. XXX zu Art. 146 OR (besucht am XXX). 

Kurz­zi­tat: OK-Stoll, N. XXX zu Art. 146 OR.

Art. 146 CO

Unless other­wi­se pro­vi­ded, a joint and several deb­tor must not take any action which might impair the posi­ti­on of his fellows.

Art. 146 OR

Ein Soli­dar­schuld­ner kann, soweit es nicht anders bestimmt ist, durch sei­ne per­sön­li­che Hand­lung die Lage der andern nicht erschweren.

Art. 146 CO

Sauf sti­pu­la­ti­on con­tr­ai­re, l’un des débi­teurs soli­dai­res ne peut aggra­ver par son fait per­son­nel la posi­ti­on des autres.

Art. 146 CO

Sal­vo dis­po­si­zio­ne con­tra­ria, un debi­to­re soli­da­le non può col suo fat­to per­so­na­le aggra­va­re la posi­zio­ne degli altri.


I. Principle of individual effect

1 In vir­tue of Art. 146 CO, indi­vi­du­al acts of a joint and several deb­tor can­not impair the posi­ti­on of the other joint and several deb­tors.[1] Accord­in­gly, this means that the actions of a joint and several deb­tor gene­ral­ly only affect them­sel­ves. Only they have to ans­wer to the credi­tor.[2]

2 As an indi­vi­du­al action that sole­ly affects the joint and several deb­tor con­cer­ned, the debtor’s default (Art. 102 CO) comes into con­si­de­ra­ti­on first. If a joint deb­tor does not per­form des­pi­te the due date and is for­mal­ly remin­ded by the credi­tor, only they are in default. Cor­re­spon­din­gly, the con­se­quen­ces of default app­ly to them exclu­si­ve­ly, such as lia­bi­li­ty for acci­den­tal dama­ge, default inte­rest and excess dama­ges (cf. Art. 103 et seq. CO).[3] Con­tra­ri­wi­se, the credi­tor must also for­mal­ly remind all joint and several deb­tors indi­vi­du­al­ly if they want to put all of the deb­tors in default.[4] Final­ly, the credi­tor only has the right of with­dra­wal accord­ing to Art. 107 et seq. CO if all joint and several deb­tors are in default.[5]

3 The princip­le of indi­vi­du­al effect also app­lies to a posi­ti­ve bre­ach of con­tract in the form of poor per­for­mance, a bre­ach of an acces­so­ry obli­ga­ti­on or a bre­ach of a duty to refrain.[6] Merely the joint and several deb­tor who is respon­si­ble for the impro­per per­for­mance is liable for the resul­ting dama­ge. The others remain obli­ged to per­form, should the per­for­mance still be owed.[7] If per­for­mance beco­mes impos­si­ble due to the fault of a joint and several deb­tor, that deb­tor is liable under Art. 97 CO exclu­si­ve­ly.[8] The other joint and several deb­tors who are not respon­si­ble for the impos­si­bi­li­ty are dischar­ged in accordance with Art. 119 CO.[9]

4 Should the joint and several obli­ga­ti­on be a con­ti­nuing obli­ga­ti­on that can be dis­sol­ved by ter­mi­na­ti­on, a noti­ce of ter­mi­na­ti­on by the credi­tor sole­ly affects the addres­sed joint and several deb­tor.[10] Simi­lar­ly, a ter­mi­na­ti­on by an indi­vi­du­al joint and several deb­tor only affects their own rela­ti­ons­hip with the credi­tor.[11]

5 A joint and several deb­tor can inter­rupt the pre­scrip­ti­ve peri­od by ack­now­led­ging the creditor’s claim only for them­sel­ves (Art. 136 para. 1 CO e con­tra­rio)[12] and the wai­ver of the pre­scrip­ti­on defence also affects only them (Art. 141 para. 2 CO).[13]

6 Accord­ing to Art. 146 CO, indi­vi­du­al con­trac­tu­al agree­ments bet­ween the credi­tor and a joint and several deb­tor do not bind the unin­vol­ved joint and several deb­tors. This inclu­des – for examp­le – an exten­si­on of lia­bi­li­ty or the sti­pu­la­ti­on of a penal­ty clau­se.[14]

II. Exceptions

7 As Art. 146 CO expli­ci­tly indi­ca­tes, the­re are also excep­ti­ons to the princip­le of indi­vi­du­al effect.[15] First, Art. 146 CO is dis­po­si­ti­ve in natu­re. This means that it can be con­trac­tual­ly agreed upon that each joint and several deb­tor is liable for the fault of the others.[16]

8 Second, in addi­ti­on to a sti­pu­la­ted aggra­va­ti­on of lia­bi­li­ty, a joint and several deb­tor may also be regar­ded as a vica­rious agent of the other as a result of Art. 101 CO, pro­vi­ded that the joint and several deb­tors are joint­ly obli­ga­ted based on a com­mon con­trac­tu­al obli­ga­ti­on.[17] Any fault of a joint and several deb­tor acting as a vica­rious agent is thus impu­ted to the joint and several deb­tor who has invol­ved them.[18] This implied invol­ve­ment of a joint deb­tor as a vica­rious agent is par­ti­cu­lar­ly to be assu­med in cases in which simp­le part­ners have con­trac­ted joint­ly pur­suant to Art. 544 para. 3 CO.[19]


[1] BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 1 to Art. 146 CO; Bucher, p. 494; CR-Romy, mn. 1 to Art. 146 CO; Schwenzer/Fountoulakis, mn. 88.21; Tercier/Pichonnaz, mn. 1755; von Tuhr/Escher, p. 306. While the unof­fi­cial Eng­lish trans­la­ti­on of the Code of Obli­ga­ti­on says “must not”, it is the under­stan­ding that a joint and several deb­tor can­not impair the posi­ti­on of his fel­low deb­tors (cf. the Ger­man wor­d­ing “kann nicht”).

[2] BK-Kratz, mn. 49 to Art. 146 CO; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 15 to Art. 146 CO. Cf. decisi­on of the Federal Supre­me Court 4C.103/2006 of 3 July 2006 con­sid. 4.1.

[3] BK-Kratz, mn. 31 to Art. 146 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 2 to Art. 146 CO; Bucher, p. 494 et seq.; CR-Romy, mn. 2 to Art. 146 CO; Per­ri­taz, mn. 139; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 16 to Art. 146 CO.

[4] BGE 129 III 702 con­sid. 2.1; decisi­on of the Federal Supre­me Court 4C.154/2002 of 10/17 Decem­ber 2002 con­sid. 3.1; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 79 to Art. 146 CO.

[5] BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 3 to Art. 146 CO; CHK-Mazan, mn. 4 to Art. 146 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 2 to Art. 146 CO; Gauch/Schluep/Emmenegger, mn. 3725; Hugue­nin, mn. 2305. Dif­fe­rent opi­ni­on ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 87 to Art. 146 CO.

[6] Cf. Gauch/Schluep/Emmenegger, mn. 2625 et seq.; Schwenzer/Fountoulakis, mn. 67.01.

[7] BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 4 to Art. 146 CO; CHK-Mazan, mn. 3 to Art. 146 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 3 to Art. 146 CO; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 28 to Art. 146 CO.

[8] Decisi­on of the Federal Supre­me Court 4C.103/2006 of 3 July 2006 con­sid. 4.1; Bucher, p. 495; Gauch/Schluep/Emmenegger, mn. 3726.

[9] BK-Kratz, mn. 24 to Art. 146 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 5 to Art. 146 CO; CHK-Mazan, mn. 5 to Art. 146 CO; CR-Romy, mn, 3 to Art. 146 CO; Hugue­nin, mn. 2305; KUKO-Jung, mn. 2 to Art. 146 CO; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 25 to Art. 146 CO. Cf. also the decisi­on of the Federal Supre­me Court 4A_562/2011 of 16 Janu­a­ry 2012 con­sid. 4.3.

[10] ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 87 to Art. 146 CO. Cf. BGE 15 I 282 con­sid. 4.

[11] BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 6 to Art. 146 CO; CHK-Mazan, mn. 6 to Art. 146 CO; Gauch/Schluep/Emmenegger, mn. 3727; Hugue­nin, mn. 2305; von Tuhr/Escher, p. 308. Cf. ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 58 et seq. to Art. 146 CO for fur­ther reference.

[12] Cf. Weiss, p. 104 et seq. for the legal situa­ti­on befo­re 1 Janu­a­ry 2020.

[13] BK-Kratz, mn. 38 to Art. 146 CO; CHK-Mazan, mn. 7 to Art. 146 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 5 to Art. 146 CO; Schwenzer/Fountoulakis, mn. 88.22; Weiss, p. 115.

[14] BK-Kratz, mn. 37 to Art. 146 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 1 to Art. 146 CO; Bucher, p. 494; CHK-Mazan, mn. 2 to Art. 146 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 1 to Art. 146 CO; Hugue­nin, mn. 2305; KUKO-Jung, mn. 1 to Art. 146 CO; Schwenzer/Fountoulakis, mn. 88.21; Tercier/Pichonnaz, mn. 1755; von Tuhr/Escher, p. 306 et seq.; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 168 to Art. 146 CO.

[15] Cf. BK-Kratz, mn. 51 to Art. 146 CO.

[16] BGE 116 II 512 con­sid. 2.; BK-Kratz, mn. 54 to Art. 146 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 7 to Art. 146 CO; Hugue­nin, mn. 2305; KUKO-Jung, mn. 3 to Art. 146 CO; Per­ri­taz, mn. 140; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 74 to Art. 146 CO.

[17] BGE 116 II 512 con­sid. 2.; BGE 82 II 525 con­sid. 5.; decisi­on of the Federal Supre­me Court 4C.103/2006 of 3 July 2006 con­sid. 4.2; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 8 to Art. 146 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 3 to Art. 146 CO; Schwenzer/Fountoulakis, mn. 88.21; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 9 to Art. 146 CO.

[18] BK-Kratz, mn. 56 et seq. to Art. 146 CO; CHK-Mazan, mn. 8 to Art. 146 CO.

[19] KUKO-Jung, mn. 2 to Art. 146 CO; von Tuhr/Escher, p. 308 fn. 75; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 34 et seq. to Art. 146 CO. Cf. also BK-Kratz, mn. 88 to Art. 146 CO.

Literaturverzeichnis

Bucher Eugen, Schwei­ze­ri­sches Obli­ga­tio­nen­recht All­ge­mei­ner Teil ohne Delikts­recht, 2nd ed., Zurich 1988

Gauch Peter / Schluep Wal­ter R. / Emmen­eg­ger Sus­an, Schwei­ze­ri­sches Obli­ga­tio­nen­recht All­ge­mei­ner Teil, Band II, 11th ed., Zurich / Basel / Gene­va 2020

Gra­ber Chris­toph K., in: Wid­mer Lüchin­ger Corin­ne / Oser David (eds.), Bas­ler Kom­men­tar, Obli­ga­tio­nen­recht I, 7th ed., Basel 2020

Hugue­nin Clai­re, Obli­ga­tio­nen­recht All­ge­mei­ner und Beson­de­rer Teil, 3rd ed., Zurich / Basel / Gene­va 2019

Jung Peter, in: Hon­sell Hein­rich (ed.), Kurz­kom­men­tar OR, Basel 2014

Kratz Bri­git­ta, Ber­ner Kom­men­tar, Soli­da­ri­tät, Art. 143–150 OR, Bern 2015

Kraus­kopf Fré­dé­ric, Zür­cher Kom­men­tar, Die Soli­da­ri­tät, Art. 143–150 OR, 3rd ed., Zurich / Basel / Gene­va 2016

Mazan Ste­phan, in: Fur­rer Andre­as / Schny­der Anton K. (eds.), Hand­kom­men­tar zum Schwei­zer Pri­vat­recht, Obli­ga­tio­nen­recht All­ge­mei­ne Bestim­mun­gen, 3rd ed., Zurich / Basel / Gene­va 2016

Per­ri­taz Vin­cent, Le con­cours d’actions et la soli­da­ri­té, diss., Zurich / Basel / Gene­va 2017

Romy Isa­bel­le, in: Thé­ve­noz Luc / Wer­ro Franz (eds.), Com­men­taire romand, Code des obli­ga­ti­ons I, 3rd ed., Basel 2021

Schwen­zer Inge­borg / Foun­tou­la­kis Chris­tia­na, Schwei­ze­ri­sches Obli­ga­tio­nen­recht All­ge­mei­ner Teil, 8th ed., Bern 2020

Ter­cier Pierre / Pichon­naz Pas­cal, Le droit des obli­ga­ti­ons, 6th ed., Gene­va / Zurich / Basel 2019

von Tuhr Andre­as / Escher Arnold, All­ge­mei­ner Teil des Schwei­ze­ri­schen Obli­ga­tio­nen­rechts, Band II, 3rd ed., Zurich 1974

Weiss Andre­as W., Soli­da­ri­tät nach Art. 143–149 des Schwei­ze­ri­schen Obli­ga­tio­nen­rechts unter beson­de­rer Berück­sich­ti­gung der Ver­jäh­rung, diss., Zurich 2011

PDF-Version

Creative-Commons-Lizenz

Creative Commons Lizenzvertrag
Online­kom­men­tar, Kom­men­tar zu Art. 146 OR von Jean-Pas­cal Stoll ist lizen­ziert unter einer Crea­ti­ve Com­mons Namens­nen­nung 4.0 Inter­na­tio­nal Lizenz.