Admissibility of the place of arrest as the place of jurisdiction even for a low arrest value

Facts

The Luxembourg company K. S.A. asserted a claim of US$ 1,959,000.-- against the Belgian company C. S.A. On January 24, 1990, it had assets of C. S.A. at the X. Bank in Zurich in the amount of around CHF 40,000.-- attached. The plaintiff prosecuted the attachment with a payment order dated January 29, 1990 and with a claim dated March 13, 1990 for CHF 2,987,475.-- plus interest and costs at the Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich as the place of attachment. The defendant disputed the jurisdiction of the court of attachment.

The Commercial Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the court of attachment under Art. 4 PILA. The defendant appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, unsuccessfully requesting that the decision be overturned and the matter be remanded to the lower instance for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction of the court of attachment, or alternatively, that the existence of such jurisdiction be established only to the extent of the value of the attached assets.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court held that the wording of Art. 4 PILA does not contain any indication that a jurisdiction of the court of attachment is only established if the attached assets have a minimum value. The sole prerequisite for the jurisdiction of the court of attachment is the existence of an attachment.

From the legislative history of Art. 4 PILA, it emerges that basing the jurisdiction on the existence of attached assets regardless of their value corresponds to the fundamental idea of both the former cantonal regulation and the current…