In a landmark decision dated 27 March 2026 (5A_989/2025, published on 21 April 2026), the Swiss Federal Supreme Court ("Federal Supreme Court") clarified for the first time whether the provisions of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code ("CPC") on the suspension of deadlines during holiday periods apply to summary proceedings governed by the Federal Act on Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy ("DEBA"). The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the CPC applies to DEBA proceedings before courts. It follows that in DEBA summary proceedings before courts – such as the proceeding to set aside the debtor's objection to payment summons (Rechtsöffnungsverfahren) or the opening of a bankruptcy – neither suspension of deadlines under the CPC nor debt enforcement holidays under the DEBA apply.

This decision clarifies the interpretation of the revised CPC and DEBA provisions that entered into force on 1 January 2025, and serves as an important reminder to practitioners and parties in DEBA summary proceedings to always calculate deadlines without regard to any holidays and to act without delay.

1. Facts

On 8 July 2025, the District Court of Zofingen declared A.________ Ltd bankrupt. In the information on appeals, the court expressly indicated that no suspension of deadlines applies (art. 56 para. 2 DEBA in conjunction with art. 145 para. 2 CPC).

A.________ Ltd filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Aargau only on 6 August 2025. Interpreting art. 145 para. 4 CPC, the Court of Appeal concluded that the issue whether the ten-day deadline for the appeal is met is governed by the CPC provisions and that no suspension applies in summary proceedings (art. 145 para. 2 lit. b in conjunction with art. 251 lit. a CPC). The Court of Appeal therefore declared the appeal inadmissible: the deadline had expired on 21 July 2025. A.________ Ltd appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, arguing that the deadline had been suspended until 6 August 2025 as a consequence of debt enforcement holidays (art. 56 para. 1 no. 2 in conjunction with art. 63 DEBA).

2. Federal Supreme Court Ruling

a) The Disputed Issue: CPC or DEBA?

The question in dispute was whether the suspension of deadlines during holiday periods under the CPC (in particular the exclusion of the suspension in summary proceedings pursuant to art. 145 para. 2 lit. b CPC) or the debt enforcement holidays under the DEBA (art. 56 et seq. in conjunction with art. 63 DEBA) apply to the appeal against a bankruptcy declaration. The legal position under the revised art. 145 para. 4 CPC and art. 56 para. 2 DEBA, which entered into force on 1 January 2025, had been controversial among legal scholars and there had been inconsistent lower instance case law.

b) Key Criterion: Identity of the Competent Authority

The Federal Supreme Court clarifies – with regard to the wording, legislative history, systematics and purpose of the revised provisions – that the delimitation between the suspension of deadlines under the CPC and the debt enforcement holidays under the DEBA solely depends on the authority that is seized with the proceedings: the CPC rules on the suspension of time limits during holiday periods apply to all proceedings before courts (including DEBA summary proceedings such as the proceeding to set aside the debtor's objection to payment summons (Rechtsöffnungsverfahren) or the opening of a bankruptcy). The DEBA rules on debt enforcement holidays apply to all proceedings before debt enforcement and supervisory authorities. The type of proceeding (ordinary, simplified or summary) is irrelevant.

c) Consequence: No Suspension of Deadlines

In DEBA summary proceedings before courts (in particular proceedings to set aside the debtor's objection to payment summons (Rechtsöffnungsverfahren) or the opening of a bankruptcy), neither a suspension of deadlines according to art. 145 para. 2 lit. b CPC nor during debt enforcement holidays (art. 56 et seq. DEBA) applies. However, courts are required to explicitly notify the parties of the absence of a suspension of deadlines in the information on appeals (art. 145 para. 3 CPC); otherwise the deadline is suspended.

In the present case, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Aargau Court of Appeal, which had found that the appeal of 6 August 2025 against the declaration of bankruptcy did not meet the relevant deadline for lack of suspension.

3. Conclusion and Practical Implications

The decision of the Federal Supreme Court, for the first time at the highest judicial level, clarifies a question of extraordinary practical relevance – this legal certainty is welcome:

• No suspension of deadlines in DEBA summary proceedings before courts: Anyone wishing to appeal in a proceeding to set aside the debtor's objection to payment summons (Rechtsöffnungsverfahren) or against the opening of a bankruptcy cannot rely on a suspension of the relevant deadline.
• Court's obligation to notify: Courts are required to explicitly notify the parties of the absence of a suspension of deadlines in the information on appeals. If this notice is missing, the deadline is suspended.
• Action required: Lawyers and parties are well advised to always calculate time limits in DEBA summary proceedings without regard to holidays and, accordingly, to act without delay.

Note: The decision is intended for official publication by the Federal Supreme Court. It applies to proceedings that were initiated after 1 January 2025.