281.1
SCHKGLPLEF
CH
CH
Art. 278 Bundesgesetz vom 11. April 1889 über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs (SchKG)
SchKG; Achter Titel: Arrest; H. Einsprache gegen den Arrestbefehl
Art. 278 SchKG
Wer durch einen Arrest in seinen Rechten betroffen ist, kann innert zehn Tagen, nachdem er von dessen Anordnung Kenntnis erhalten hat, beim Gericht Einsprache erheben.
Das Gericht gibt den Beteiligten Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme und entscheidet ohne Verzug.
Der Einspracheentscheid kann mit Beschwerde nach der ZPO angefochten werden. Vor der Rechtsmittelinstanz können neue Tatsachen geltend gemacht werden.
Einsprache und Beschwerde hemmen die Wirkung des Arrestes nicht.
Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (579)
AbR.2012.13.Nr.9 · ow (Art. 278 Abs. 3 SchKG)
ZPO § 104(3): Separation of Procedural Costs in Provisional Measures
Cited as the basis for the appeal of the opposition decision in the arrest proceedings.
ZZ.1984.14 · so (Art. 278 Abs. 1/4 SchKG)
Creditor's Untimely Bankruptcy Filing Due to Holiday Deadline Miscalculation
This article establishes the deadline for initiating enforcement proceedings after an attachment, which was the primary issue under consideration.
SR.2004.00002 · zh (Art. 278 Abs. III SchKG)
Tax Enforcement Jeopardy Measure and Introduction of New Facts
This procedural rule is cited in relation to the court's power to examine new facts in the enforcement procedure.
C/20816/2024 · ge (art. 278 al. 3 LP)
Appellant v. Respondent: Validity of Independent Guarantee for Loan Attachment
Cited as the basis for admissibility of the appeal against the decision on the opposition to the attachment order.
C/26787/2024 · ge (art. 278 al. 1 LP)
Appeal Regarding Revocation of Precautionary Attachment on Foreign State Assets Based on Assigned Arbitration Award
Used to establish the deadline for filing the appeal and the admissibility procedure.
C/26787/2024 · ge (art. 278 al. 3 LP)
Appeal Regarding Revocation of Precautionary Attachment on Foreign State Assets Based on Assigned Arbitration Award
Allows the introduction of new facts and evidence in the appeal against the decision on the conservatory attachment.
C/26787/2024 · ge (art. 278 al. 3 LP)
Appeal Regarding Revocation of Precautionary Attachment on Foreign State Assets Based on Assigned Arbitration Award
Used to establish that the appeal against the decision on the conservatory attachment was admissible under the law.
C/15759/2024 · ge (Art. 278 al. 3 LP)
Spousal Maintenance Arrears and Provisional Seizure Opposition
Cited again to specify the rule allowing new facts and evidence in appeals against seizure decisions.
C/15759/2024 · ge (Art. 278 al. 3 LP)
Spousal Maintenance Arrears and Provisional Seizure Opposition
Cited in reasoning 1.3 for the application of the simplified procedure.
C/15759/2024 · ge (Art. 278 al. 3 LP)
Spousal Maintenance Arrears and Provisional Seizure Opposition
Cited in the preliminary section to establish that the appeal procedure is applicable to the decision on opposition to seizure.
105 2025 73 · fr (Art. 278 SchKG)
Appeal Against Pre-Judgment Arrest Execution Dismissed on Procedural Grounds
Cited in the reasoning to distinguish between objections reserved for the opposition procedure (Art. 278 SchKG) and those allowed in an appeal against the execution (Art. 17 SchKG), which justifies not entering into the merits of the third-party ownership claim.
C/1833/2024 · ge (art. 278 al. 1 LP)
Appeal Regarding Lifting of Precautionary Attachment on Funds Transferred to Switzerland
Cited in the reasoning regarding the deadline for filing the appeal.
C/1833/2024 · ge (art. 278 al. 3 LP)
Appeal Regarding Lifting of Precautionary Attachment on Funds Transferred to Switzerland
Cited in the reasoning, but the final order relates to the dismissal of the appeal under procedural provisions of the CPC, not this specific procedural article for the appeal itself.
C/7519/2024 · ge (art. 278 al. 3 LP)
Asset Seizure Upheld Despite Corporate Veil Challenge
Cited in the reasoning (point 1.2) as the basis for the admissibility of the appeal against the decision on the objection to the seizure, but not explicitly used in the final dispositive orders regarding the substance of the case.
C/1666/2022 · ge (art. 278 al. 1 LP)
Appellant v. Appellee Asset Seizure Challenge
Cited to define the object of the opposition procedure: reviewing the seizure conditions.