Facts
Ms. Michael rented a three-room apartment in Zurich from Brandenberger. When Brandenberger terminated the tenancy effective March 31, 1973, Ms. Michael filed a request with the Rental Court of the District of Zurich on October 23, 1972 to extend the tenancy by one year. The Rental Court granted this request and set a deadline of ten days from the written notification of the decision for Ms. Michael to file a second extension request if she wished to do so.
With a submission dated March 1, 1974, Ms. Michael requested the Rental Court to extend the tenancy by an additional two years. The Rental Court reinstated the deadline for filing the claim, which had expired on January 31, 1974 according to Art. 267a(3) of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO). However, on October 10, 1974, it rejected the second extension request, as Ms. Michael had not made sufficient efforts to find another apartment.
Ms. Michael filed an appeal, which the Higher Court dismissed with a decision dated February 27, 1975. It held that the claim was filed too late according to Art. 267a(3) CO and that the restoration of the deadline due to the fault of the plaintiff's representative was inadmissible.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court confirms the contested decision. It states that the provisions on the suspension and interruption of the statute of limitations do not apply to the preclusive deadlines of Art. 267a(3) CO, and that the judge cannot generally extend or restore these deadlines if they have been missed.
While federal law provides for an exception to restore the deadline in cases of unintentional delay, these exceptional provisions cannot be applied by analogy to other situations. The defense of a defendant that the deadline for filing the claim has been missed is also only considered abusive if the…