Kommentar zu Art. 149 OR

Ein Kom­men­tar von Jean-Pas­cal Stoll

Her­aus­ge­ge­ben von Chris­toph Hur­ni und Mir­jam Eggen

Zitier­vor­schlag

Jean-Pas­cal Stoll, Kom­men­tar zu Art. 149 OR, in: Chris­toph Hur­ni / Mir­jam Eggen (Hrsg.), Online­kom­men­tar zum Obli­ga­tio­nen­recht, https://onlinekommentar.ch/or149/, 1. Aufl., N. XXX zu Art. 149 OR (besucht am XXX). 

Kurz­zi­tat: OK-Stoll, N. XXX zu Art. 149 OR.

Art. 149 CO

1 A joint and several deb­tor with right of recour­se against his fel­low deb­tors is subro­ga­ted to the rights of the credi­tor to the extent the lat­ter has been satisfied.

2 The credi­tor is liable if he favours the legal posi­ti­on of one joint and several deb­tor to the detri­ment of the others.

Art. 149 OR

1 Auf den rück­griffs­be­rech­tig­ten Soli­dar­schuld­ner gehen in dem­sel­ben Mas­se, als er den Gläu­bi­ger befrie­digt hat, des­sen Rech­te über.

2 Der Gläu­bi­ger ist dafür ver­ant­wort­lich, dass er die recht­li­che Lage des einen Soli­dar­schuld­ners nicht zum Scha­den der übri­gen bes­ser stelle.

Art. 149 CO

1 Le débi­teur soli­dai­re qui jouit d’un recours est subro­gé aux droits du cré­an­cier jus­qu’à con­cur­rence de ce qu’il lui a payé.

2 Si le cré­an­cier amé­lio­re la con­di­ti­on de l’un des débi­teurs soli­dai­res au détri­ment des autres, il sup­por­te per­son­nel­lement les con­sé­quen­ces de son fait.

Art. 149 CO

1 Il debi­to­re soli­da­le cui spet­ta il regres­so sub­en­tra in tut­te le ragio­ni del credi­to­re fino a con­cor­ren­za di quan­to gli ha pagato.

2 Il credi­to­re è responsa­bi­le ove abbia avvant­ag­gia­to la posi­zio­ne giu­ridica di un debi­to­re soli­da­le a dan­no degli altri.


I. The subrogation

A. Automatic transfer of the creditor’s rights

1 As per Art. 149 para. 1 CO, the creditor’s rights auto­ma­ti­cal­ly pass from the credi­tor to the deb­tor by ope­ra­ti­on of law to the extent that the deb­tor has satis­fied the credi­tor. This is an assign­ment by law accord­ing to Art. 166 CO.[1] Subro­ga­ti­on pre­sup­po­ses that the deb­tor has an inde­pen­dent right of recour­se accord­ing to Art. 148 para. 2 CO.[2] Sub­se­quent­ly, the deb­tor enti­t­led to recour­se dis­po­ses of two par­al­lel reme­di­es that com­pe­te with each other: the right of recour­se accord­ing to Art. 148 para. 2 CO and the subro­ga­ted creditor’s rights pur­suant to Art. 149 CO.[3] The subro­ga­ted claim ser­ves to faci­li­ta­te and secu­re the recour­se.[4] The claim of the joint and several deb­tor against his co-deb­tor resul­ting from subro­ga­ti­on only exists to the extent of the right of recour­se accord­ing to Art. 148 CO, i.e. the amount excee­ding their inter­nal lia­bi­li­ty quo­ta.[5]

2 If app­li­ca­ble, it is necessa­ry to con­vert the subro­ga­ted claim into a mone­ta­ry claim if the deb­tor has pro­vi­ded a per­for­mance in kind or ser­vice to the credi­tor.[6]

3 The subro­ga­ti­on accord­ing to Art. 149 CO only app­lies in the case of per­fect joint and several lia­bi­li­ty, not in the case of imper­fect joint and several lia­bi­li­ty.[7]

B. Effect of the subrogation

4 The dif­fe­rence com­pa­red to the inde­pen­dent right of recour­se under Art. 148 para. 2 CO is that – on the one hand – all ancil­la­ry rights trans­fer to the deb­tor with the subro­ga­ti­on in addi­ti­on to the main claim (cf. Art. 170 CO). The joint and several deb­tor can now bene­fit from any secu­ri­ties such as liens or gua­ran­tees, as they also pass on to them.[8]

5 On the other hand, the claim is trans­fer­red tog­e­ther with all objec­tions against the credi­tor. In other words, the other joint and several deb­tors may then rai­se all objec­tions in the inter­nal rela­ti­ons­hip that would have also been open to them against the credi­tor, name­ly indi­vi­du­al acquit­tals on the part of the credi­tor (Art. 507 para. 3 CO ana­lo­gous­ly).[9] The cur­rent pre­scrip­ti­on peri­od is also con­ti­nued without inter­rup­ti­on. This may result in the subro­ga­ti­on claim beco­m­ing time-bar­red befo­re the recour­se claim or – if the deb­tor pays an alrea­dy time-bar­red debt to the credi­tor – that the subro­ga­ted claim con­ti­nues to be time-bar­red and the­re­fo­re remains unen­for­ce­ab­le.[10]

6 The other co-deb­tors are not joint­ly and sever­al­ly liable to the enti­t­led deb­tor. They are only liable for their indi­vi­du­al quo­ta in their inter­nal rela­ti­ons­hip.[11]

II. Creditor’s liability

7 Alt­hough the credi­tor is princi­pal­ly free to choo­se how much they claim from which joint deb­tor,[12] the credi­tor is nevertheless under a duty not to impro­ve the legal posi­ti­on of one joint and several deb­tor to the detri­ment of the others (Art. 149 para. 2 CO). If this duty is not ful­fil­led, they are respon­si­ble for the dama­ge cau­sed accord­in­gly.[13]

8 Cases of app­li­ca­ti­on ari­se when the credi­tor relea­ses secu­ri­ties such as a lien and the joint and several deb­tor to whom the subro­ga­ti­on claim is trans­fer­red falls short becau­se they were not suf­fi­ci­ent­ly satis­fied in the inter­nal rela­ti­ons­hip (in the absence of a rea­li­sable lien).[14] The same app­lies if the credi­tor does not hand over the pro­mis­so­ry let­ter or other evi­dence per­tai­ning to the debt (cf. Art. 170 para. 2 CO).[15]

9 A uni­la­te­ral acquit­tal by the credi­tor in favour of a joint and several deb­tor is not a case of app­li­ca­ti­on of this favoura­ble tre­at­ment wit­hin the mea­ning of Art. 149 para. 2 CO. The joint and several deb­tor taking recour­se is still enti­t­led to the undi­mi­nis­hed recour­se accord­ing to Art. 148 para. 2 CO against their co-deb­tors, as the acquit­tal gene­ral­ly has no effect in the inter­nal rela­ti­ons­hip.[16]

10 The legal con­se­quence of this bre­ach of duty is a claim for dama­ges under Art. 149 para. 2 CO by the deb­tor against the credi­tor. This can be asser­ted against the credi­tor eit­her by way of an objec­tion or by means of a lawsu­it.[17]


[1] BK-Kratz, mn. 7 to Art. 149 CO; Bugnon, p. 89; CHK-Mazan, mn. 2 to Art. 149 CO; Per­ri­taz, mn. 188; Schwenzer/Fountoulakis, mn. 88.40; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 167 to Art. 148/149 CO.

[2] BK-Kratz, mn. 36 to Art. 149 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 4 to Art. 149 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 2 to Art. 149 CO; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 194 to Art. 148/149 CO.

[3] BK-Kratz, mn. 36 to Art. 149 CO; Gaut­schi, mn. 151; Hugue­nin, mn. 2313; Tercier/Pichonnaz, mn. 1773; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 188 to Art. 148/149 CO.

[4] BGE 89 II 415 con­sid. 2; BGE 53 II 25 con­sid. 1.; Hugue­nin, mn. 2313; Per­ri­taz, mn. 189; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 168 to Art. 148/149 CO.

[5] BGE 103 II 137 con­sid. 4d; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 4 to Art. 149 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 2 to Art. 149 CO; von Tuhr/Escher, p. 316; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 176 to Art. 148/149 CO.

[6] BK-Kratz, mn. 24 to Art. 149 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 1 to Art. 149 CO.

[7]  BGE 133 III 6 con­sid. 5.3.3; BGE 130 III 362 con­sid. 5.2; BGE 115 II 42 con­sid. 2a; BK-Kratz, mn. 40 to Art. 149 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 3 to Art. 149 CO; Bugnon, p. 89 et seq.; CHK-Mazan, mn. 1 to Art. 149 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 1 to Art. 149 CO; Gauch/Schluep/Emmenegger, mn. 3754; von Tuhr/Escher, p. 320. Dif­fe­rent opi­ni­on Gaut­schi, mn. 179 et seq.; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 191 to Art. 148/149 CO.

[8] BK-Kratz, mn. 25 to Art. 149 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 2 to Art. 149 CO; Bugnon, p. 92; CHK-Mazan, mn. 3 to Art. 149 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 2 to Art. 149 CO; Hugue­nin, mn. 2313; Schwenzer/Fountoulakis, mn. 88.40; Tercier/Pichonnaz, mn. 1773; von Tuhr/Escher, p. 317; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 179 to Art. 148/149 CO.

[9] BK-Kratz, mn. 26 to Art. 149 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 4 to Art. 149 CO; Bugnon, p. 91 et seq.; Gauch/Schluep/Emmenegger, mn. 3747; KUKO-Jung, mn. 1 to Art. 149 CO; von Tuhr/Escher, p. 317.

[10] BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 6 to Art. 149 CO; Hugue­nin, mn. 2313; KUKO-Jung, mn. 1 to Art. 149 CO; Schwenzer/Fountoulakis, mn. 88.40; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 181 et seq. to Art. 148/149 CO. Dif­fe­rent opi­ni­on BK-Kratz, mn. 27 to Art. 149 CO.

[11] BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 4 to Art. 149 CO; von Tuhr/Escher, p. 318; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 173 to Art. 148/149 CO. Dif­fe­rent opi­ni­on Per­ri­taz, mn. 200.

[12] Cf. com­men­ta­ry on Art. 144 CO.

[13] BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 7 to Art. 149 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 3 to Art. 149 CO; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 197 to Art. 148/149 CO.

[14] BK-Kratz, mn. 48 to Art. 149 CO; CHK-Mazan, mn. 6 to Art. 149 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 4 to Art. 149 CO; Hugue­nin, mn. 2313; KUKO-Jung, mn. 2 to Art. 149 CO; Per­ri­taz, mn. 191; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 199 to Art. 148/149 CO.

[15] BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 7 to Art. 149 CO; Bugnon, p. 92 et seq.; CR-Romy, mn. 4 to Art. 149 CO.

[16] Decisi­on of the Federal Supre­me Court 4A_65/2008 of 3 August 2009 con­sid. 8.4; BK-Kratz, mn. 50 to Art. 149 CO; Bucher, p. 498; CHK-Mazan, mn. 5 to Art. 149 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 5 to Art. 149 CO; KUKO-Jung, mn. 2 to Art. 149 CO; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 200 to Art. 148/149 CO. Cf. com­men­ta­ry on Art. 147 CO.

[17] BK-Kratz, mn. 59 to Art. 149 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 8 to Art. 149 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 6 to Art. 149 CO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PDF-Version

Creative-Commons-Lizenz

Creative Commons Lizenzvertrag
Onlinekommentar.ch, Kom­men­tar zu Art. 149 OR von Jean-Pas­cal Stoll ist lizen­ziert unter einer Crea­ti­ve Com­mons Namens­nen­nung 4.0 Inter­na­tio­nal Lizenz.