Revised CPC: New deadline to file new facts and evidence in civil proceedings

On 1 January 2025, the revised Swiss Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has come into effect, introducing significant changes. We analyse the revision in a series of concise articles, aimed at offering a clear and current understanding of these changes.

The revised CPC clarifies when parties can submit new facts and evidence after the "allegation phase".

Swiss civil procedure follows the 'principle of concentration,' requiring parties to present all facts and evidence at the early stage of proceedings. This principle ensures efficient justice by preventing late changes or strategic delays in presenting allegations. Similar principles exist in other national procedures, such as French civil procedure.

In this respect, the former Art. 229 SCCP authorised parties to submit new facts and evidence without any limitation within the context of the two rounds of briefs exchange of the written initial phase. In the absence of any second round of submissions, the parties could then still file new facts or evidence at the introductory hearing (instruction hearing following the first round of briefs exchange). Further to that phase, any nova could only be submitted in the proceedings subject to restrictive conditions, i.e. that they be submitted: (1) immediately at the beginning of the next main hearing and (2) could be qualified as proper nova (the new fact or evidence occurred after the two rounds of written submissions or the instruction hearing) or improper nova (existed before but could not be submitted within the prior phase despite reasonable diligence). According to its wording, Art. 229 CPC requires that new evidence, whether proper or improper, be submitted without delay after the initial written phase or instruction hearing. This condition did not specify a strict deadline, allowing the court some discretion to consider the evidence admissible.

Such a situation, however, led to significant uncertainty as to the timing within which nova were admissible. While legal doctrine sometimes suggested requiring a rapid response from the concerned party, typically within five, seven, or ten days, it was considered acceptable for a party to conduct necessary verifications before presenting new facts and evidence to the court. For example, case law has established that a deadline of five or seven days is too short, whereas three weeks is considered too long. However, no specific deadline had ever been set by the Supreme Court.

This situation proved unsatisfactory entailing significant uncertainties. Also, fixing a specific deadline in the law would have proved difficult. Indeed, a two-week time limit might work in some cases but be impractical in others depending on the circumstances of the case.

The Swiss Parliament aimed to clarify the uncertainties of former Art. 229 CPC regarding the deadline for filing nova with the 2025 revised CPC by introducing these changes:

Further to the instruction phase, Civil courts are now required to set a deadline for the parties to submit new facts and evidence.

In the absence of such a deadline granted by the court, new facts and new evidence are admissible after the allegation phase, if they are filed no later than the next main hearing. The conditions to file nova within the first stage of the proceeding (i.e. the initial written phase until the instruction hearing) remain unchanged.

The Swiss legislator has clarified the process for filing nova after the initial phase. Instead of the vague requirement to file "immediately" without delay, judges will now set a specific deadline. This will also enable the judge to adjust the deadline duration according to the specifics of the case. This change brings clarity to previously uncertain matters, which litigants will appreciate.