- Parliament has hammered in the first pegs to modernize the code of civil procedure.
- In future, it will be easier to prevent unwanted media articles with a super-provisional injunction than it is today.
- The left failed with motions to reduce costs for litigants.
The main point of discussion in the National Council was a provision on super-provisional orders that had been changed by the Council of States in order to prevent unwanted media reports for the time being. Today, a court can stop a media report if it could cause a “particularly serious disadvantage” for the party making the request.
However, the stop may only be ordered if there is no obvious reason to justify the impending violation of rights by the media report and the measure does not appear disproportionate. In the article, the Federal Council wanted to clarify that the media report in question can or is causing a particularly serious disadvantage.
Both councils now deleted the word “especially”. In addition to the other criteria, a “severe disadvantage” is sufficient to justify ordering a precautionary measure. The National Council joined the Council of States. The advocates argued that it was about the interests of those affected by the reports.
Correction requests from the left failed
With 183 votes to 1 and two abstentions, the National Council finally approved the revised Swiss Code of Civil Procedure in the overall vote. The code of civil procedure must be lay-friendly, said Philipp Matthias Bregy (middle/VS) on behalf of the legal commission. The Commission was guided by this in its applications.
Sibel Arslan (Greens/BS) stated that litigation will remain unaffordable for many people seeking justice. The left and also the SVP wanted to make corrections with minority motions in order to further reduce costs, but were consistently defeated.
The code of civil procedure has been in force since the beginning of 2011 – with it, cantonal provisions have been standardized nationwide. The aim of the reform is to make it easier for private individuals and companies to access the courts. Among other things, the legal costs law will be adjusted for this purpose.
Initially, the Federal Council also wanted to include an improvement in collective redress in the bill. However, the proposals for this were very controversial in the consultation. Therefore, the Federal Council split up the bill; he passed the message to Parliament last December.
The bill goes back to the Council of States because of differences.