272
ZPOCPC
CH
CH
Art. 270 Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO)
ZPO; 2. Teil: Besondere Bestimmungen; 5. Titel: Summarisches Verfahren; 5. Kapitel: Vorsorgliche Massnahmen und Schutzschrift
Art. 270 ZPO
Wer Grund zur Annahme hat, dass gegen ihn ohne vorgängige Anhörung die Anordnung einer superprovisorischen Massnahme, eines Arrests nach den Artikeln 271–281 SchKG oder einer anderen Massnahme beantragt wird, kann seinen Standpunkt vorsorglich in einer Schutzschrift darlegen.
Die Schutzschrift wird der Gegenpartei nur mitgeteilt, wenn diese das entsprechende Verfahren einleitet.
Die Schutzschrift ist sechs Monate nach Einreichung nicht mehr zu beachten.
Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (111)
C/13774/2024 · ge (art. 270 al. 3 CPC)
Preventive Motion Deemed Moot Due to Failure to Initiate Proceedings
This article was the basis for declaring the precautionary application (mémoire préventif) null and void (caduc).
C/14164/2024 · ge (art. 270 al. 3 CPC)
Lapse of Preventative Motion Due to Failure to Initiate Main Proceeding
The court declared the preventative application (mémoire préventif) inadmissible because the counterparty did not initiate proceedings within the legal timeframe.
LC240024 · zh (Art. 270 ZPO)
Child Custody Intervention Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Legal Interest
Cited in the reasoning regarding the initial submission of the protective petition.
C/20954/2023 · ge (art. 270 al. 3 CPC)
Preventative Motion Lapsed Due to Failure to Initiate Main Proceedings
This provision was applied to declare the preventive motion (mémoire préventif) as having lapsed (caduc) because no procedure was initiated within the time limit.
C/6750/2024 · ge (art. 270 al. 3 CPC)
Preemptive Brief Nullification and Case Striking
The provision was cited to declare the preventative brief as lapsed because the other party did not initiate proceedings within the deadline.
RX240001 · zh (Art. 270 ZPO)
Protective Filing Costs Awarded to Party
The court accepted the submission as a protective brief ('Schutzschrift').
C/17869/2023 · ge (art. 270 al. 2 CPC)
Association's Preemptive Memorandum Nullified Due to Lack of Main Proceeding
Cited in the reasoning regarding the condition for communicating the preventive motion, which implies its application context, although the main ground relies on paragraph 3.
C/17869/2023 · ge (art. 270 al. 3 CPC)
Association's Preemptive Memorandum Nullified Due to Lack of Main Proceeding
The court used this article to declare the preventive motion inadmissible because no procedure was initiated within the statutory period.
C/18327/2023 · ge (art. 270 al. 3 CPC)
Lapse of Precautionary Memorandum Due to Failure to Commence Main Action
This article provided the basis for declaring the preventive memorandum inadmissible (caduc) because the other party did not initiate proceedings.
C/16484/2023 · ge (art. 270 al. 3 CPC)
Case Struck Off Due to Failure to Initiate Provisional Measures
This provision was cited as the basis for declaring the preventive motion caduc because the other party did not initiate proceedings within the prescribed time limit.
C/11158/2023 · ge (art. 270 al. 3 CPC)
Preemptive Motion Lapsed Due to Failure to Initiate Proceedings
Used to rule that the preventive motion became lapsed because the main procedure was not initiated within the six-month period.
C/6052/2023 · ge (art. 270 al. 3 CPC)
Lapse of Preventive Memorandum Due to Failure to Initiate Proceedings
The court cited this article to establish that the precautionary request became null because the other party did not initiate proceedings within the prescribed time limit.
RX230003 · zh (Art. 270 ZPO)
Protective Submission Accepted, Costs Imposed
The court accepted the applicant's submission as a protective brief (Schutzschrift) according to this article.
RX230002 · zh (Art. 270 ZPO)
Protective Brief Accepted, Legal Aid Denied
The court accepted the applicant's submission as a protective brief (Schutzschrift) under this provision.
C/3944/2022 · ge (art. 270 al. 3 CPC)
Preemptive Motion Lapsed Due to Failure to Initiate Main Proceeding
This provision was used to establish that the preventive application became null and void because the other party did not initiate proceedings within the statutory period.