Facts
In a contract dated 13 December 1980, Ms. S. entrusted architect X. with various architectural works for the construction of a single-family house in Dornach. On 21 January 1982, the acceptance of the works took place. On 7 September 1983, Ms. S. reported several defects. On 19 January 1987, she filed a complaint against X. with the Justice of the Peace of Therwil. After additional expert assessment, Ms. S. filed a new complaint on 12 December 1988. The District Court refused to consider this new complaint, finding that the exception of res judicata was fully justified. On appeal, the Higher Court also dismissed the complaint, except with regard to the defects discovered by Ms. S. in August 1989, for which it admitted the exception of prescription.Considerations
The Federal Tribunal considers that the cantonal provision of civil procedure providing for the lapse of a claim arising from federal civil law in the event of non-compliance with a deadline before the judgment on the merits (Art. 85(1) CPC of the canton of Basel-Landschaft) is contrary to federal law. Indeed, cantonal procedural law cannot provide that non-observance of a procedural deadline results in the loss of the substantive right governed by federal law. Only federal law can regulate the extinction of private rights by the passage of time and the inaction of the right holder.
However, the filing of an action within the meaning of Art. 135(2) CO, which interrupts the statute of limitations, aims at any procedural act by which the creditor first addresses the judge in the required form, whether or not the case is subsequently brought before the judge within the validity…