Facts
The case concerns a dispute over the registration of mechanic's liens on the properties of Respondents 1 and 2. Appellant W. filed an application with the President of the Court X. for the registration of these liens, which was initially granted. However, the court of first instance later had the liens deleted, as it considered other securities to be sufficient. W. then filed an appeal with the High Court of the Canton of Aargau, which partially upheld the appeal and provisionally registered a mechanic's lien against Respondent 5 in the land register, but otherwise dismissed the appeal.
W. now files a constitutional appeal against the judgment of the High Court, alleging a violation of Art. 4 of the Federal Constitution. He claims that the High Court's application of substantive law was arbitrary.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court considers the legal view of the High Court to be untenable. Pursuant to Art. 839 para. 3 of the Swiss Civil Code, the substitute security must provide the same coverage as the mechanic's lien, i.e., for the work compensation claim including interest. The default interest must be secured for an unlimited period, as it is governed by Art. 818 para. 1 no. 2 of the Swiss Civil Code, and not by no. 3 (contractual interest).
The High Court has obviously and grossly violated Art. 839 para. 3 in conjunction with Art. 818 para. 1 no. 2 of the Swiss Civil Code by considering the offered securities as sufficient, even though they only covered the default interest…