Facts

Parties: A. and B. (Plaintiffs) against C. (Defendant)

Courts: Tribunal de première instance de Genève (First Instance), Cour de justice du canton de Genève (Appeal Instance), Bundesgericht (Final Instance)

Date of Judgment: November 6, 2024

Main Issue: Whether the plaintiffs maintained the prescription period by filing a mediation request and subsequent claim in court after the parties jointly waived the mediation procedure.

Facts:

  • A. and B. filed a mediation request with the Tribunal de première instance de Genève on December 10, 2019, against C.
  • The parties jointly agreed to waive the mediation procedure, and A. and B. withdrew their mediation request.
  • On April 21, 2021, A. and B. filed the same legal document with the court that they had previously filed with the mediation authority.
  • C. contested the compliance with the prescription period and requested the dismissal of the claim.
  • The court and the cantonal court dismissed the claim, while the Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal of A. and B. and remitted the case to the first instance for further proceedings.

Considerations

The question at hand is whether the appellants maintained the prescription period (Art. 494 para. 3 CC in conjunction with Art. 533 para. 1 CC) by initially filing a mediation request and subsequently, after jointly waiving the mediation procedure, filing a claim with the court.

According to Art. 199 para. 1 CPC, the parties in proprietary disputes with a value in dispute of at least 100,000 francs can jointly waive the mediation procedure. In such a case, the previously invoked mediation authority is no longer functionally competent. If the plaintiff files the same legal document with the court within the one-month period after withdrawing their mediation request, Art. 63 CPC applies, and the prescription period of their claim is maintained by the preservation of the pendency of the action.

Pendency is created by the filing of a mediation request or a claim (Art. 62 para. 1 CPC), regardless of whether the admissibility requirements are met. If a private law period is based on the date of filing the claim, the service of the claim, or another act of opening proceedings, the decisive moment is the beginning of pendency in the sense of the CPC (Art. 64 para. 2 CPC).

According to Art. 63 CPC, if the act of opening proceedings is withdrawn or declared inadmissible due to lack of competence and is refiled with the competent court or mediation authority within one month after the withdrawal or declaration of…