Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
272 ZPOCPC CH

Art. 88 Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO) - Feststellungsklage

ZPO; 1. Teil: Allgemeine Bestimmungen; 6. Titel: Klagen
Originalquelle öffnen Gesamter Erlass (426 Artikel) Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Art. 88 ZPO · Feststellungsklage

Mit der Feststellungsklage verlangt die klagende Partei die gerichtliche Feststellung, dass ein Recht oder Rechtsverhältnis besteht oder nicht besteht.

← Art. 87 ZPO Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO) - Gegenstand Art. 89 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 (161)

10/2012/8 · sh (Art. 88 ZPO)
Government Entity v. Property Donation Obligations Expiration
Cited as the legal basis for the declaratory action which was ultimately deemed inadmissible.
4A_326/2025 (Art. 88 CPC)
Declaratory action on assignment of loan claims — inadmissibility due to availability of performance action
Used as the legal basis for the declaratory action, which was deemed inadmissible.
C/3735/2025 · ge (art. 85 et 88 CPC)
Sole Proprietor v. Association Regarding Trademark Transfer and Provisional Measures
Cited in the dispositive to justify the award of legal fees (dépens) to the successful party.
XBE.2025.3 · ag (Art. 88 ZPO)
Father's Appeal on Child Removal Order Dismissed Due to Lack of Legal Standing
Cited as the legal basis for assessing the requirement of a protectable interest in a declaratory action.
C/28528/2024 · ge (art. 85 et 88 CPC)
Employer v. Former Employee: Provisional Measures Granted for Misappropriation of Client Data
Cited in support of ordering the reimbursement of costs to the applicant.
AH230082.L · zh (Art. 88 ZPO)
Employer Liability for Minimum Wage Classification and Foreign Qualification Recognition
Cited in the context of the claim for declaratory judgment, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the first claim due to a lack of interest in a declaratory judgment (subsidiarity).
LC240024 · zh (Art. 88 ZPO)
Child Custody Intervention Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Legal Interest
Cited in the reasoning concerning the subsidiary nature of the declaratory judgment claim.
AN220047.L · zh (Art. 88 ZPO)
Joinder of Claims and Annulment of Termination Notice Based on Unrebutted Retaliation Presumption
Cited in the reasoning as the basis for the failed declaratory claims (RB 1-3), but not explicitly cited in the final orders (1-4).
ZK1 2023 121 · gr (Art. 88 CPC)
Mortgage Bond Ownership After Debt Repayment
Cited implicitly in the context of confirming the lower court's decision which ruled on the declaratory action based on this article.
A/689/2024 · ge (art. 88 CPC)
Group Disability Insurer Termination Validity Dispute
Mentioned in the reasoning that the conclusion for nullity of the termination is an action for declaration under this article.
C/28105/2023 · ge (Art. 85, 88, 89 et 90 CPC)
Lifting Opposition Based on Unsigned Copy of Judicial Settlement
These provisions are cited to determine the basis for setting the attorney's fees (dépens) for the first and second instances.
HG220120 · zh (Art. 88 ZPO)
Plaintiff's Claims Dismissed for Failure to Show Financial Loss and Lack of Jurisdiction
This provision, concerning declaratory judgments, was considered, but the claims based on it were dismissed for lack of legal interest.
C1 24 97 · vs (Art. 88 CPC)
Owner Appeals Inadmissibility of Subsidiary Reconventional Claims in Artisan's Lien Dispute
Cited in the reasoning to define the nature of the main counterclaim (negative declaratory relief) found admissible in the dispositive (Conclusions III and IV).
C/11873/2023 · ge (art. 88 CPC)
Foreclosure Purchaser Eviction Appeal Regarding Time-Barred Objections to Auction
Cited in determining the award of first instance costs.
LB240016 · zh (Art. 88 ZPO)
Abuse of Process Claim Improperly Brought as Declaratory Action
Cited in the context of the plaintiff's claim, but the court ultimately found the claim to be inadmissible under this provision.