Betreibungsregisterauszug: How to Get a Swiss Debt Register Extract

Someone asked you for a Betreibungsregisterauszug, and you are not sure what it will show, whether it is bad news, or how you get one. This page walks through ordering an extract on yourself, requesting one on someone else, and reading what actually appears on it. It is part of our wider Swiss debt and Betreibung law coverage, itself part of the broader guide to Swiss law.

Information last verified on 20 July 2026. This page provides general legal information about Swiss law and does not constitute legal advice in an individual case.

Who orders the extract, and from where

There is no single national website that issues a Betreibungsregisterauszug. Every request goes to the Betreibungsamt responsible for the subject's Wohnsitzgemeinde, meaning the commune where that person is officially resident. That office holds the actual register entries and is the only body that can issue an extract against them.

Offices differ in how they take a request. Some accept a request in person at the counter, some by post, and a growing number offer an online order form or a cantonal e-service, but this is arranged canton by canton and even commune by commune rather than through one federal system. If you need an extract on someone living in a different commune than you, the request still goes to that person's Betreibungsamt, not yours.

A practical first step is to look up the Betreibungsamt for the relevant Wohnsitzgemeinde and check its own page for the accepted channels, since a commune that only takes post will simply not process an emailed request. Bring or state proof of identity for yourself, and for a third-party request, be ready to explain the legitimate interest described below, since the office can and does ask.

What the extract actually shows

A Betreibungsregisterauszug lists the Betreibungen filed against the person at that office, both open and past, within the disclosure period described below. Each entry generally shows the creditor, the amount claimed, and the stage the Betreibung has reached.

The detail that matters most for an anxious reader is what an entry does not mean. A Betreibung begins the moment a creditor files a Betreibungsbegehren with the office under Art. 67 SchKG, stating the amount claimed and its basis. The Betreibungsamt does not verify the underlying claim before recording it and issuing a Zahlungsbefehl. An entry can and does appear on the register purely on one creditor's assertion, before any court has tested whether the money is actually owed.

That is why the debtor gets a real chance to push back. Under Art. 74 SchKG, the debtor has 10 days from being served the Zahlungsbefehl to lodge a Rechtsvorschlag, an objection that requires no reason at all and halts the Betreibung on the spot. If a Rechtsvorschlag was raised, the extract can reflect that the matter is contested rather than settled. A disputed claim can sit on the register for a period even though the debtor denies owing anything, so a name appearing on an extract is a signal to ask more questions, not a finding of fact.

The exact fees under Art. 12a GebV SchKG

The federal fee schedule sets three figures, and it is worth being precise about how they relate to each other because they are not additive. A written extract picked up in person costs a flat CHF 17, regardless of how many pages it runs to.

If the office instead sends the extract by post, fax or electronically, the fee is CHF 18, and that figure already includes delivery rather than sitting on top of the CHF 17. If the requester wants it sent by registered post specifically, the fee is CHF 22, again all-inclusive of that delivery method. Courts and administrative authorities entitled to the information under federal law pay no fee at all for the written extract.

Worked example. A landlord in Bern wants an extract on a prospective tenant before signing a lease. The landlord contacts the applicant's Betreibungsamt, states that the request relates to concluding a tenancy agreement, and asks for the extract by regular post. The landlord pays CHF 18 total and receives one document showing whatever open or recent Betreibungen exist against that applicant, or a clean result if none do.

Had the landlord instead asked for registered mail, the same request would have cost CHF 22, still with nothing further to pay.

Who may request someone else's extract

Ordering your own extract needs no special justification. Ordering someone else's is different, and this is the part landlords, employers and lenders most often get wrong by assuming a request is a formality.

Art. 8a Abs. 1 SchKG allows any person to inspect the registers and obtain an extract, but only if that person makes a legitimate interest credible. "Glaubhaft machen" is a real, if modest, standard. It is lower than proving the interest outright, but it is not satisfied by simply asking, and a Betreibungsamt can decline a request that gives no reason at all.

Art. 8a Abs. 2 SchKG then gives the clearest example of what clears that bar: a request made in direct connection with concluding or carrying out a contract. This is the exact statutory basis that lets a landlord vet a prospective tenant, an employer screen a candidate, or a lender assess a borrower before extending credit. State that connection plainly when asking, since it is the legal reason the office is allowed to hand over the extract at all.

What is withheld from a third-party request

Not everything on file is disclosed to an outside requester. Art. 8a Abs. 3 SchKG lists four situations in which the office tells a third party nothing about a given Betreibung: the Betreibung was void or was quashed on appeal or by a court, the debtor won a repayment claim against the creditor, the creditor withdrew the Betreibung, or the debtor successfully applied to have it concealed after raising a timely objection.

That fourth ground has its own procedure, timing and a separate CHF 40 fee, and is substantial enough to deserve its own explanation. See removing a Betreibung from third-party view for how that concealment request actually works and what it does and does not achieve.

The five-year window

Even without a successful concealment request, an entry does not follow someone indefinitely on a third-party extract. Art. 8a Abs. 4 SchKG cuts off a third party's right to see a given Betreibung five years after the proceeding concluded, calculated from that conclusion rather than from when the Zahlungsbefehl was first issued.

Courts and administrative authorities are treated differently. If a matter is actually pending before them, they can continue to request an extract covering that Betreibung even after the five-year window has closed for an ordinary third party such as a landlord or employer.

Why this is not the same as Germany or Austria

German-language search results for "Betreibung" are dominated by German-law content, and that content is describing a different system on a different trigger. Germany does have a debtor register, the Schuldnerverzeichnis under Section 882b ZPO, and Section 882f Abs. 1 Nr. 4 ZPO does let a creditor such as a landlord search it to avoid economic harm from unpaid debts. The real difference from Switzerland is not whether a register exists, it is when an entry is created.

A German listing requires a bailiff's order, a tax authority's order, or an insolvency court's order, meaning enforcement has already been attempted and has effectively failed, or formal insolvency has opened. A Swiss Betreibung, by contrast, logs an entry the moment a creditor files the Betreibungsbegehren, before the debtor has even had the 10 days to object under Art. 74 SchKG and long before any court involvement. Switzerland's register catches a claim at its very first assertion; Germany's catches one only after it has already survived enforcement.

Austria sits at the opposite end from Switzerland on who may look. Its equivalent mechanism, informally called EXDA, is governed by Paragraph 427 EO and restricts access to lawyers and notaries acting for creditors, plus certain public bodies and social-insurance carriers as creditors themselves. An ordinary landlord or private employer in Austria has no direct route into that system at all, unlike in Switzerland, where a landlord or employer with a genuine contract-related interest can request an extract directly.

A clean or marked extract is not the whole story

A clean Betreibungsregisterauszug tells you only that no disclosable Betreibung currently sits against that person at that office. It does not certify current income, existing debts that have not yet reached a Betreibung, or debts registered at a different commune if the person moved recently.

A marked extract likewise does not certify that the money is owed. An entry can reflect a claim the debtor is actively disputing through a Rechtsvorschlag, one the creditor never pursued further, or one that a court has not yet reached. Treat the extract as one input, read alongside references, income evidence and ordinary judgment, rather than as a verdict in either direction.