Legislator Case Law & Legislation
11 08 155 • KG LU 11 08 155 AI generated

Pre-emptive Right Enforcement: Security for Costs Requirement Upheld

Case Number 11 08 155
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Switzerland · Canton of Lucerne (CH-LU)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Court Costs Borne by appellant

Legislator summary

AI generated

In a dispute concerning the enforcement of a statutory pre-emptive right over a farm, the court upheld the lower court's decision requiring the claimant to provide security for costs amounting to CHF 45,000 due to his apparent lack of assets. The court reasoned that the proffered surety, offered under a specific article of the Code of Obligations, did not qualify as a valid form of security under the relevant procedural law, as it was conditional and did not offer the immediate satisfaction guaranteed by the statutorily enumerated forms of security like cash, securities, or bank guarantees. Furthermore, the court affirmed the initial calculation of the dispute value, which determined the required security amount, based on the higher monetary interest asserted by the defendants in maintaining the agreed sale price over the claimant's interest in acquiring the property at its capitalized earning value.

Legislator headnote

Official

§§ 18 Abs. 1 und 127 Abs. 1 ZPO; § 3 Abs. 2 KoV. Die Schadlosbürgschaft gemäss Art. 495 Abs. 3 OR fällt nicht unter die Sicherstellungsarten gemäss § 127 Abs. 1 ZPO. Streitwert bei Klage auf Anerkennung und Durchsetzung eines Vorkaufsrechts bezüglich eines landwirtschaftlichen Gewerbes. | Zivilprozessrecht

Keywords

AI generated
security for costs enforcement costs value in dispute procedural guarantees right to property law of obligations

Cited Legislation

AI generated

Cited Case Law

AI generated
AI generated

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 127 Abs. 1 ZPO

The court confirmed that the offered indemnity bond does not meet the security types specified in this provision.

§ 18 Abs. 1 ZPO

This provision was used to determine that the value in dispute corresponds to the plaintiff's request, specifically the purchase price.

§ 3 Abs. 2 KoV

This provision was applied to set the value in dispute at the higher amount (the sale price) because the parties' interests were unequal.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Rechtsprechung Luzern

Instanz: · Obergericht

Abteilung: · I. Kammer

Rechtsgebiet: · Zivilprozessrecht

Entscheiddatum: · 16.02.2009

Fallnummer: · 11 08 155

LGVE: · 2009 I Nr. 21

Leitsatz: · §§ 18 Abs. 1 und 127 Abs. 1 ZPO; § 3 Abs. 2 KoV. Die Schadlosbürgschaft gemäss Art. 495 Abs. 3 OR fällt nicht unter die Sicherstellungsarten gemäss § 127 Abs. 1 ZPO. Streitwert bei Klage auf Anerkennung und Durchsetzung eines Vorkaufsrechts bezüglich eines landwirtschaftlichen Gewerbes.

Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.