Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
272 ZPOCPC CH

Art. 228 Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO) - Erste Parteivorträge

ZPO; 2. Teil: Besondere Bestimmungen; 3. Titel: Ordentliches Verfahren; 3. Kapitel: Hauptverhandlung
Originalquelle öffnen Gesamter Erlass (426 Artikel) Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Art. 228 ZPO · Erste Parteivorträge

Nach der Eröffnung der Hauptverhandlung stellen die Parteien ihre Anträge und begründen sie.

Das Gericht gibt ihnen Gelegenheit zu Replik und Duplik.

← Art. 227 ZPO Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO) - Gegenstand Art. 229 ZPO →

Fragen Sie sich, wie diese Gesetzesbestimmung auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Erlass zusammen mit Rechtsprechung, Kommentaren und verwandten Gesetzesbestimmungen in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (70)

RBOG.1995.Nr.41 · tg (§ 228 Abs. 2 ZPO)
Cross-Appeal Supplying Grounds for Defective Original Appeal
Cited to explain the consequence (decision based on the file) when the statement of grounds for appeal is missing, which applies to the initial appeal in this case.
PKG 1994 2 · gr (Art. 228 Abs. 1 ZPO)
Child Support Standing and Executor Standing in Appeal
Cited analogously to describe the consequences of failing to submit written grounds in the written appeal procedure.
RBOG.1995.Nr.41 · tg (§ 228 Abs. 2 ZPO)
Permissibility of Cross-Appeal Curing Prior Omission and Timeliness of Cross-Appeal Under Extension
Cited as the rule determining that a decision is made based on the files if the appeal brief lacks reasoning.
RB240032 · zh (Art. 228 ZPO)
Conflict of Interest and Right to Oral Hearing Appeal Dismissed
The court addressed the appellant's request regarding the right to oral party statements under this article, concluding that a full main hearing must still take place.
LA230011 · zh (Art. 228 Abs. 1 ZPO)
Employee Termination Date Adjustment and Salary Award
Relevant for the timing of new factual allegations and evidence in oral proceedings.
C/6251/2020 · ge (Art. 228 al. 1 CPC)
Labor Dispute: Variable Compensation, Vacation Indemnity, and Wrongful Dismissal Appeal
Cited in the reasoning regarding the procedure for introducing new arguments/evidence.
ZB.2023.36 · bs (Art. 228 ZPO)
Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Interim Measure Concerning Basement Access Based on Contractual Distinction Between Lease and Loan-for-Use
Cited in the reasoning regarding the stage at which new facts and evidence must be introduced during oral arguments.
RT220080 · zh (Art. 228 ff. ZPO)
Bankruptcy of Respondent Renders Enforcement Appeal Moot
Cited in relation to requests for evidence such as witness and party examinations.
471----------- · vd (art. 228 CPC)
Buyer's Obligation for Property Maintenance and Repair Costs Post-Possession Upheld
Cited in the reasoning concerning the start of the substantive phase, but not in the dispositive orders.
ZG.2020.00206 · gl (Art. 228 ZPO)
New Evidence Admissible Before Opening Arguments
Cited in relation to the first party submissions and their timing relative to new evidence.
BZ 2022 33 · zg (Art. 228 ZPO)
Judge Recusal Appeal Based on Settlement Proposal and Perceived Prejudgment
Mentioned in the background facts regarding the judge's inquiry about submitting final briefs instead of a main hearing.
C/22420/2019 · ge (art. 228 et ss CPC)
Employment Termination Dispute: Procedural Flaws Leading to Remand
The Court cited these articles regarding main debates (débats principaux) in connection with procedural flaws.
LA200023 · zh (Art. 228 Abs. 1 ZPO)
Executive Summary Dismissal Over Post-Notice Competitive Preparation Upheld
Cited in reasoning regarding the process for presenting facts and evidence at the start of the main hearing.
LA200023 · zh (Art. 228 Abs. 2 ZPO)
Executive Summary Dismissal Over Post-Notice Competitive Preparation Upheld
Cited in reasoning regarding the right of the opposing party to respond (Replik) to the first party statement.
LB190015 · zh (Art. 228 ZPO)
Members v. Corporate Resolution on LLC Joinder and Forest Management Outsourcing
The court confirmed the lower court's decision not to re-examine the claim regarding the protocol approval because the appellants did not justify or supplement their arguments in the replica according to this procedural rule.