Kommentar zu Art. 147 OR

Ein Kom­men­tar von Jean-Pas­cal Stoll

Her­aus­ge­ge­ben von Chris­toph Hur­ni und Mir­jam Eggen

Zitier­vor­schlag

Jean-Pas­cal Stoll, Kom­men­tar zu Art. 147 OR, in: Chris­toph Hur­ni / Mir­jam Eggen (Hrsg.), Online­kom­men­tar zum Obli­ga­tio­nen­recht, https://onlinekommentar.ch/or147/, 1. Aufl., N. XXX zu Art. 147 OR (besucht am XXX). 

Kurz­zi­tat: OK-Stoll, N. XXX zu Art. 147 OR.

Art. 147 CO

1 Whe­re one joint and several deb­tor satis­fies the credi­tor by pay­ment or set-off, the others are dischar­ged to that extent.

2 Whe­re one joint and several deb­tor is released from lia­bi­li­ty without satis­fac­tion of the credi­tor, such release does not bene­fit the others save to the extent jus­ti­fied by the cir­cum­s­tan­ces or the natu­re of the obligation.

Art. 147 OR

1 Soweit ein Soli­dar­schuld­ner durch Zah­lung oder Ver­rech­nung den Gläu­bi­ger befrie­digt hat, sind auch die übri­gen befreit.

2 Wird ein Soli­dar­schuld­ner ohne Befrie­di­gung des Gläu­bi­gers befreit, so wirkt die Befrei­ung zuguns­ten der andern nur so weit, als die Umstän­de oder die Natur der Ver­bind­lich­keit es rechtfertigen.

Art. 147 CO

1 Celui des débi­teurs soli­dai­res dont le paiement ou la com­pen­sa­ti­on éteint la det­te en tota­li­té ou en par­tie libè­re les autres jusqu’à concur­rence de la por­ti­on éteinte.

2 Si l’un des débi­teurs soli­dai­res est libé­ré sans que la det­te ait été payée, sa libéra­tion ne pro­fi­te aux autres que dans la mes­u­re indi­quée par les cir­con­stan­ces ou la natu­re de l’obligation.

Art. 147 CO

1 In quan­to uno dei debi­to­ri soli­da­li ha sod­disfat­to il credi­to­re medi­an­te paga­men­to o com­pen­sa­zio­ne, anche gli alt­ri sono liberati.

2 La libe­ra­zio­ne di un debi­to­re soli­da­le, sen­za che il credi­to­re sia sta­to sod­disfat­to, gio­va agli alt­ri solo in quan­to ciò sia giu­sti­fi­ca­to dal­le cir­costanze o dal­la natu­ra dell’obbligazione.


I. Effect of the creditor’s satisfaction

1 When a joint and several deb­tor satis­fies the credi­tor in full or part, the other joint and several deb­tors are dischar­ged to the same extent pur­suant to Art. 147 para. 1 CO (over­all effect of deb­tor dischar­ge).[1] The law spe­ci­fi­cal­ly lists (mone­ta­ry) pay­ment and set-off as dischar­ging acts. Not expli­ci­tly lis­ted – but nevertheless with the same effect – is the pro­vi­si­on of goods or ser­vices by a joint and several deb­tor. Ulti­mate­ly, it depends on which con­trac­tu­al per­for­mance is owed.[2]

2 Fur­ther redemp­ti­on opti­ons that result in the satis­fac­tion of the credi­tor repre­sent sur­ro­ga­te per­for­man­ces. In this case, a joint and several deb­tor does not per­form the owed obli­ga­ti­on, but with an equi­va­lent sub­sti­tu­te.[3] As alrea­dy men­tio­ned, the law pro­vi­des the set-off in par­ti­cu­lar (Art. 120 et seq. CO). It is irrele­vant if a joint and several deb­tor or the credi­tor decla­res the set-off.[4] Dis­pu­ted claims may also be brought for off­set­ting.[5] Howe­ver, it is not pos­si­ble for a joint and several deb­tor to decla­re a set-off in rela­ti­on to a claim to which ano­t­her joint and several deb­tor is enti­t­led.[6] In addi­ti­on, per­for­mance in lieu or depo­sit are pos­si­ble sur­ro­ga­te per­for­man­ces.[7]

3 In the event of only par­ti­al satis­fac­tion by a joint and several deb­tor, the creditor’s claim shall be redu­ced to the cor­re­spon­ding extent.[8]

4 Art. 147 para. 1 CO then only regu­la­tes the exter­nal rela­ti­ons­hip bet­ween the credi­tor and the joint and several deb­tors. Any rights of recour­se among the joint and several deb­tors remain unaf­fec­ted. The creditor’s claim is not tru­ly extin­guis­hed but pas­ses to the per­forming deb­tor wit­hin the frame­work of subro­ga­ti­on accord­ing to Art. 149 CO.[9]

II. Discharge without the creditor’s satisfaction

5 Accord­ing to Art. 147 para. 2 CO, the dischar­ge of a joint and several deb­tor without satis­fac­tion of the credi­tor only affects the other joint and several deb­tors if jus­ti­fied by the cir­cum­s­tan­ces or the natu­re of the obli­ga­ti­on. In con­trast to para. 1, para. 2 governs the princip­le of indi­vi­du­al dischar­ge.[10] The bur­den of pro­of con­cer­ning whe­ther a dischar­ge of an indi­vi­du­al joint and several deb­tor has an over­all effect lies with the joint and several deb­tor invo­king it.[11]

A. Discharge by legal acts

6 Legal acts gene­ral­ly only affect the credi­tor and the joint and several deb­tor invol­ved. They inclu­de the acquit­tal (Art. 115 CO), the sett­le­ment and the nova­ti­on (Art. 116 CO).

7 The acquit­tal or the sett­le­ment only release the joint and several deb­tor invol­ved and only in the exter­nal rela­ti­ons­hip vis-à-vis the credi­tor. In the inter­nal rela­ti­ons­hip, the other joint and several deb­tors may still take recour­se against the exemp­ted deb­tor.[12] If the credi­tor wis­hes the joint and several deb­tor to bene­fit from the acquit­tal or the sett­le­ment to the same extent in the inter­nal rela­ti­ons­hip, they must grant the acquit­tal or con­clu­de the sett­le­ment with dischar­ging effect for all joint and several deb­tors tog­e­ther.[13]

8 Based on an expli­cit or impli­cit agree­ment, the effect can be exten­ded to the other joint and several deb­tors. Whe­ther this is pre­su­med in an indi­vi­du­al case depends on the inten­ti­on of the par­ties and the inter­pre­ta­ti­on of the con­tract.[14] An over­all effect is indi­ca­ted if the credi­tor recei­ves a bene­fit from the sett­le­ment,[15] if the credi­tor issu­es a rece­i­pt[16] or if they return the borrower’s note.[17] Ano­t­her aspect taken into account is whe­ther the credi­tor is awa­re that the other joint and several deb­tors can take recour­se against the deb­tor invol­ved in the sett­le­ment. The sett­le­ment con­clu­ded in favour of the con­trac­ting joint and several deb­tor would beco­me illu­so­ry if the deb­tor were to be sub­ject to the full com­pen­sa­ti­on in the inter­nal rela­ti­ons­hip.[18]

9 It is argued that a par­ti­al or full dischar­ge of the deb­tor by the credi­tor should be inter­pre­ted as a duty of the credi­tor to tre­at the joint and several debt merely as a par­ti­al debt from the­re­on. The credi­tor may only claim the other joint and several deb­tors to the extent of their inter­nal quo­tas. This would omit any recour­se among the deb­tors.[19]

10 Final­ly, if the old debt is extin­guis­hed by the crea­ti­on of a new debt (nova­ti­on; Art. 116 CO), only the joint and several deb­tor who cons­ents to the nova­ti­on is dischar­ged. Any dif­fe­rent inten­ti­on by the joint and several deb­tor invol­ved and the credi­tor is reser­ved.[20]

B. Discharge without legal acts

11 If the credi­tor assigns a claim against one of the joint and several deb­tors to the same deb­tor, the obli­ga­ti­on is deemed extin­guis­hed by mer­ger as the deb­tor acqui­red a claim against him- or herself (Art. 118 CO).[21]

12 The impos­si­bi­li­ty of a per­for­mance by cir­cum­s­tan­ces not attri­bu­ta­ble to the deb­tors relea­ses all joint deb­tors in the exter­nal rela­ti­ons­hip as they can no lon­ger per­form (cf. Art. 119 CO).[22] Howe­ver, if other joint and several deb­tors are still able to per­form in their capa­ci­ty, they are not released but still have to ful­fil their obli­ga­ti­on to per­form. Accord­in­gly, the­re is still a claim for com­pen­sa­ti­on in the inter­nal rela­ti­ons­hip.[23]

13 If the credi­tor refu­ses without good cau­se to accept the per­for­mance of a joint and several deb­tor, they are in credi­tor default (Art. 91 CO). The effects of the creditor’s default under Art. 92 et seq. CO bene­fit all joint and several deb­tors. In par­ti­cu­lar, the depo­si­t­ing joint and several deb­tor relea­ses the other deb­tors equal­ly.[24]

14 The pre­scrip­ti­on as well as the for­feit­u­re of a claim only have an effect in rela­ti­on to the deb­tor con­cer­ned as the­se peri­ods run sepa­r­ate­ly for each joint and several deb­tor. The creditor’s claims against the other joint and several deb­tors are not affec­ted.[25] By con­trast, the inter­rup­ti­on of the pre­scrip­ti­ve peri­od – if due to an act by the credi­tor – affects all joint and several deb­tors (Art. 136 para. 1 CO).[26]


[1] ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 5 to Art. 147 CO.

[2] BK-Kratz, mn. 26 to Art. 147 CO; Bugnon, p. 25; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 5 to Art. 147 CO.

[3] ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 21 to Art. 147 CO.

[4] BK-Kratz, mn. 29 to Art. 147 CO; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 33 to Art. 147 CO. Cf. decisi­on of the Federal Supre­me Court 4A_82/2009 of 7 April 2009 con­sid. 4.2.

[5] Decisi­ons of the Federal Supre­me Court 4A_536/2017 of 3 July 2018 con­sid. 7.3. and 4A_500/2013 of 19 March 2014 con­sid. 6.1; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 1 to Art. 147 CO.

[6] Decisi­on of the Federal Supre­me Court 4P.155/2003 of 19 Decem­ber 2004 con­sid. 5.; Schwenzer/Fountoulakis, mn. 88.24.

[7] BK-Kratz, mn. 30 et seq. to Art. 147 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 1 to Art. 147 CO; Bugnon, p. 25 et seq.; CHK-Mazan, mn. 1 to Art. 147 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 2 to Art. 147 CO; Gauch/Schluep/Emmenegger, mn. 3717; Hugue­nin, mn. 2308,; KUKO-Jung, mn. 2 to Art. 147 CO; Schwenzer/Fountoulakis, mn. 88.24; Tercier/Pichonnaz, mn. 1753.

[8] Cf. com­men­ta­ry on Art. 144 CO. BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 3 to Art. 147 CO; Bucher, p. 495; CHK-Mazan, mn. 2 to Art. 147 CO; Geiss­büh­ler, mn. 1234; Schwenzer/Fountoulakis, mn. 88.24; von Tuhr/Escher, p. 309; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 21 et seq. to Art. 147 CO.

[9] BK-Kratz, mn. 22 to Art. 147 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 2 to Art. 147 CO; CHK-Mazan, mn. 1 to Art. 147 CO; KUKO-Jung, mn. 2 to Art. 147 CO.

[10] BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 4 to Art. 147 CO; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 47 to Art. 147 CO.

[11] Decisi­ons of the Federal Supre­me Court 4A_428/2014 of 12 Janu­a­ry 2015 con­sid. 4.5. and 4C.27/2003 of 26 May 2003 con­sid. 3.5.2; BK-Kratz, mn. 43 and 45 to Art. 147 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 4 to Art. 147 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 4 to Art. 147 CO; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 123 to Art. 147 CO.

[12] BK-Kratz, mn. 67 to Art. 147 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 6 to Art. 147 CO; Gaut­schi, mn. 188; Geiss­büh­ler, mn. 1235; Per­ri­taz, mn. 146; Stu­ber, mn. 203.

[13] Per­ri­taz, mn. 150; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 55 to Art. 147 CO.

[14] BGE 133 III 116 con­sid. 4.2; BGE 107 II 226 con­sid. 3. BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 5 to Art. 147 CO; Bucher, p. 495; Gauch/Schluep/Emmenegger, mn. 3719a; Gaut­schi, mn. 185.

[15] Decisi­on of the Federal Supre­me Court 4A_500/2013 of 19 March 2014 con­sid. 6.1 (unpu­blis­hed con­si­de­ra­ti­on of BGE 140 III 344).

[16] Decisi­on of the Federal Supre­me Court 4C.27/2003 of 26 May 2003 con­sid. 3.5.4.

[17] BK-Kratz, mn. 77 to Art. 147 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 5 to Art. 147 CO; CHK-Mazan, mn. 5 to Art. 147 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 4 to Art. 147 CO; Stu­ber, mn. 201; von Tuhr/Escher, p. 310; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 73 et seq. to Art. 147 CO.

[18] BGE 133 III 116 con­sid. 4.3; BGE 107 II 226 con­sid. 3b; BGE 34 II 80 con­sid. 5.; decisi­on of the Federal Supre­me Court 4C.27/2003 of 26 May 2003 con­sid. 3.6; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 5 to Art. 147 CO; CHK-Mazan, mn. 6 to Art. 147 CO; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 110 et seq. to Art. 147 CO.

[19] Decisi­on of the Federal Supre­me Court 4C.358/2005 of 12 Febru­a­ry 2007 con­sid. 4.6 (unpu­blis­hed con­si­de­ra­ti­on of BGE 133 II 116); KUKO-Jung, mn. 4 to Art. 147 CO; Per­ri­taz, mn. 148; von Tuhr/Escher, p. 313 fn. 125. Cf. also Bucher, p. 497.

[20] BGE 126 III 375 con­sid. 2f; BK-Kratz, mn. 80 to Art. 147 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 6 to Art. 147 CO; Bugnon, p. 28; Stu­ber, mn. 218; von Tuhr/Escher, p. 310; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 84 to Art. 147 CO.

[21] BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 9 to Art. 147 CO; Bucher, p. 496; Bugnon, p. 27 et seq.; Tercier/Pichonnaz, mn. 1758. Dif­fe­ren­tia­ting BK-Kratz, mn. 84 et seq. to Art. 147 CO; Stu­ber, mn. 261 et seq.; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 87 et seq. to Art. 147 CO.

[22] Gauch/Schluep/Emmenegger, mn. 3717; Stu­ber, mn. 267.

[23]  BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 7 to Art. 147 CO; CHK-Mazan, mn. 7 to Art. 147 CO; Stu­ber, mn. 269; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 91 to Art. 147 CO.

[24] BK-Kratz, mn. 97 to Art. 147 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 12 to Art. 147 CO; CHK-Mazan, mn. 9 to Art. 147 CO; Stu­ber, mn. 286; von Tuhr/Escher, p. 311; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 157 et seq. to Art. 146 CO.

[25] Decisi­on of the Ober­ge­richt Lucer­ne 1B 11 38 of 20 Decem­ber 2011 con­sid. 6.1.2., publ. in: Luzer­ner Gerichts- und Ver­wal­tungs­ent­schei­de (LGVE) 2012 I Nr. 16. Cf. BGE 130 III 362 con­sid. 5.2; BK-Kratz, mn. 90 et seq. to Art. 147 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 11 to Art. 147 CO; CHK-Mazan, mn. 8 to Art. 147 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 5 to Art. 147 CO; Hugue­nin, mn. 2308. Cf. ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 92 et seq. to Art. 147 CO for the resul­ting pro­blem of the inter­nal recour­se among the debtors.

[26] BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 11 to Art. 147 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 5 to Art. 147 CO; Gauch/Schluep/Emmenegger, mn. 3721.

Literaturverzeichnis

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

Bugnon Hubert, L’action récur­soi­re en matiè­re de con­cours de responsa­bi­li­tés civi­les, diss., Ent­le­buch 1982

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

Gaut­schi Alain, Soli­dar­schuld und Aus­gleich, diss., Zurich / St. Gal­len 2009

Geiss­büh­ler Gré­go­i­re, Le droit des obli­ga­ti­ons, Volu­me 1: par­tie géné­ra­le, Gene­va / Zurich / Basel 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

Stu­ber Jonas, Ein­re­den und Ein­wen­dun­gen in der pas­si­ven Soli­da­ri­tät, diss., Bern 2021

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

PDF-Version

Creative-Commons-Lizenz

Creative Commons Lizenzvertrag
Online­kom­men­tar, Kom­men­tar zu Art. 147 OR von Jean-Pas­cal Stoll ist lizen­ziert unter einer Crea­ti­ve Com­mons Namens­nen­nung 4.0 Inter­na­tio­nal Lizenz.