Source: http://en.swiss-law-solutions.com/blog/category/all
Timestamp: 2020-02-24 10:35:48
Document Index: 363114070

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 134', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 141', 'Art. 128', 'Art. 60', 'Art. 136', 'Art. 65', 'Art. 139', 'Art. 1']

A brief selection of new Swiss laws that have come in to effect in 2020
​Every new year brings new laws and changes in the existing laws. Following, is a selection of some of the most important changes in Swiss law for 2020:
1. ​Revision of the statute of limitations
1.1. ​Parties can agree to a standstill of the statute of limitations
​The law now allows for the statute of limitations to be suspended if parties agree thereto for the duration of settlement discussions, mediation agreements or other out-of-court settlement procedures (Art. 134 para. 1 no. 8 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO)). The agreement must be concluded in writing, i.e. it must in principle be mutually and personally signed (Art. 13 CO) and Art. 14 CO).
1.2. Changes in the waiver of a limitation period ​
Under previous law, it was not possible to waive a statute of limitations in advance, i.e. it was possible only after the conclusion of a contract (see Federal Supreme Court decision BGE 132 III 226 E. 3.3.7). As of 1 January 2020, a statute of limitations can be waived only after the beginning of a limitation period (Art. 141 para. 1 CO). This can create pitfalls, because the beginning of a limitation perio d is, in principle, the due date of a claim, in other words the point in time at which the fulfilment of the claim can be demanded.
1.3. ​The limitation period for personal injury is doubled
The reason for the change in the law was the situation of asbestos-damaged persons, whose claims under the previous law usually expired long before the disease had even broken out. In this context, on 11 March 2014 in the case of “Howald Moor et al. v. Switzerland”, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that a ten-year limitation period is too short for asbestos victims (case nos. 52067/10 and 41072/11).
1.4. ​Introduction of a relative limitation period of three years for contractual claims for compensation for personal injury
The law previously provided for a general limitation period of 10 years for damage claims that could be attributed to a breach of contract. Art. 128a OR has now created a new and separate category: "damages or satisfaction from bodily injury or death in breach of contract". On the one hand, the absolute limitation period in such constellations has also been doubled to 20 years. On the other hand, a relative limitation period of three years from knowledge of the damage has been introduced. As soon as bodily injury is involved and this is attributable to a breach of con tract, the injured party must therefore act faster than previously was the case—within three (instead of ten) years.
​In Art. 60 para. 2 CO, the wording of the law has been adapted to being line with previous case law. In the event of criminal proceedings that relate to the same damage as the civil case, the longer criminal prosecution period determines the statute of limitations. If the criminal law statute of limitations can no longer apply because a criminal court has passed a first-instance judgement, the civil statute of limitations continues for three years after the pronouncement of this judgement.
1.6. ​Clarification of the effect of the interruption of the limitation period against joint debtors
​Art. 136 para. 1 CO specifies the legal position for claims against debtors who are jointly liable. If an interruption of the statute of limitations is based on an action of the creditor (e.g. through initiating debt collection, or a request for arbitration, etc.), it has effect against all debtors. If, however, the interruption is based on an action of the debtor (e.g. through acknowledgement of debt), it only affects that debtor. Consequently, a new limitation period of equal duration begins only for that debtor.
​Particularly new is that an interruption towards the insurer also has an effect towards the debtor and vice versa—provided there is a direct right to claim against the insurer (as in road traffic law, Art. 65 para. 1 of the Road Traffic Act).
​Art. 139 CO for recourse claims has been adapted. If a co-debtor has satisfied a creditor's claim, he has the right of recourse to other co-debtors within three years from the date of satisfaction and from the date of knowledge of other co-debtors.
2. ​The maximum interest rate for consumer loans remains unchanged
​According to Art. 1 of the Federal Department of Justice and Police regulation on the maximum interest rate for consumer loans, for 2020 the maximum interest rate for these loans remains unchanged, amounting to 10% for cash loans and 12% for overdrafts.
​On 1 Jan uary 2020, the Financial Services Act (FIDLEG) and the Financial Institutions Act (FINIG) came into force along with implementing ordinances. As a result, investor protection will be improved. The Financial Services Act regulates how customers must be informed about financial instruments. With the Financial Institutions Act, independent asset managers and trustees are now also subject to supervision.
​In most cantons, the general tax rates are reduced additionally.
﻿The Erosion of the Lawyers’ Duty of Loyalty
Anyone who retains the services of a lawyer necessarily does so with trust, and at the same time assumes that the lawyer will not betray the client trust by representing an opposing party at some later point. What many people do not know, however, is that, according to a decision of the Chamber of Lawyers of the Canton of St. Gallen, Switzerland, it is possible for a lawyer to change sides and litigate against a previous client.
In 2002, a family consulted a St Gallen law firm, concerning its newly built home that had serious construction flaws due to negligence and shoddy workmanship. After detailed consultation and providing the firm with comprehensive documentation of all the relevant facts, the firm informed the family that it would not accept the representation, as the case required extensive efforts.
However, with the subsequent help of other law firms, the family was eventually able to resolve the case.
In July 2015, the same St. Gallen law firm filed a petition, on behalf of another client, at the respective municipality for the demolition of the house of the family, the firm’s former client.
In spite of the family’s protests, the firm refused to abandon its absurd demand, and the family consequently filed a complaint at the supervisory authorities for breach of the duty of loyalty. Furthermore, the firm was still in possession of documents entrusted to it by the family.
Surprisingly, the St. Gallen cantonal supervisory authority rejected the family’s complaint, as subsequently also did the professional ethics committee. Thus, it is possible for a lawyer to switch sides without concern for penalizing consequences! However, the disloyal law firm did fail in its petition for the demolition of the family’s house, which ultimately only produced unnecessary costs for both the previous client and the new client.
What measures can be taken to safeguard a lawyer’s duty of loyalty? The International Association for Justice, Human Rights, Professional Honor and Honor of Office based in Switzerland and in the Principality of Liechtenstein asserts that a good lawyer is one who, first and foremost, is grounded in ethical standards and is absolutely loyal. Concerning the legal aspect, the Association consulted the law firm Swiss Law Solutions, which successfully represented the family in warding off the demolition request. Swiss Law Solutions and the Association give the following advice: When retaining the services of a lawyer, a client should insist on a written agreement that the lawyer will never accept a mandate against the client.
​(The above text is a press release from the International Association for Justice, Human Rights, and Professional and Administrative Honor of July 21, 2016. Swiss Law Solutions adds to this information that the duty of loyalty and the commitment never to change sides on a previous or present client is part of the standard mandate agreement of our firm.)