18 September 2026
Whoever invoices Regie hours has to prove them — that is what Art. 8 ZGB says. A Rapport signed by the customer shifts the burden of proof: according to the Federal Supreme Court it creates a natural presumption that it is correct, without being an acknowledgement of debt. What belongs in the Rapport, who may sign, what a reservation does and what applies without a signature.
A Regie Rapport — the signed record of work billed at rate, outside the quote — gets signed on site, because otherwise the contractor has to prove every hour and every piece of material: under Art. 8 ZGB, the Swiss Civil Code, the burden of proof lies with whoever derives rights from a fact, and for Regie work that is the contractor, for its expenditure. A Rapport signed by the customer or the customer's site management changes that. According to the case law of the Federal Supreme Court it creates a natural presumption that it is correct — that the work was done and the expenditure was necessary —, and it is the customer who must rebut that presumption with substantiated objections, not the contractor who must prove it. The signature is not an acknowledgement of debt: it confirms the work, not the invoice. Without a signature the Rapport remains evidence, but one piece among many, set against the customer's memory.
The Regie Rapport — in the firm usually called the hours report or the daily report — is the document with which the contractor substantiates work billed by expenditure: who did what, when and for how long, with which material. It belongs to Regie, meaning work that is not covered by a fixed or unit price and is paid "according to the value of the work and the expenses of the contractor" (Art. 374 OR, the Swiss Code of Obligations). Where a price has been agreed, no Rapport is needed for payment; where none has, the Rapport is the invoice in raw form.
If the SIA 118 standard is part of the contract, its Art. 47 governs how Rapports work: the contractor draws up the Rapport daily, with the number of workers, working and machine hours, material consumed and details of the work done; the site management checks it within a short period — seven days in the 2013 edition — and signs it; it notes any differences on the Rapport, and these are to be settled within a month. Without SIA 118, the customer has no duty to sign anything at all. The signature is then a matter of habit — and the contractor has all the more reason to get it on site.
The Federal Supreme Court held as much in 2022, in a case from the plastering trade (judgment 4A_377/2021 of 29 June 2022): Regie Rapports signed by the site management create a presumption that they are correct, and reservations noted on the Rapports are not enough, "in the absence of further explanation", to rebut that presumption. The client must contest with substance — which hour, which material, why it was not necessary — not merely write "subject to reservation". The public clients' supplements to SIA 118 state the same rule: the signing of the Regie Rapports by the site management creates "a natural presumption that they are correct", but "does not constitute an acknowledgement of debt by the client".
Three consequences follow:
A fourth consequence concerns the order itself. In judgment 4A_377/2021, the contract for work had reserved written form for Regie orders, but the site management had signed most of the Regie Rapports without reservation. The Federal Supreme Court saw in that a tacit waiver of the form requirement. A customer who signs Rapports for years can hardly claim later that he ordered nothing — and a contractor who gets the signature every time is building exactly that position.
A Rapport that counts in court describes the work in such a way that a third party can follow it. The specialist literature on Rapports puts it in one sentence: besides the reported expenditure, "the work performed must also be described in a comprehensible way". In concrete terms:
The last point often decides more than all the others. The presumption of correctness arises from the signature of the client or the client's representative. Under SIA 118 that is the site management, which has the authority to do so under its Art. 33; without SIA 118, Art. 32 OR applies, and the customer must have authorised the person. A tenant who unlocks the flat, a caretaker who happens to be there, an apprentice of the general contractor — all of them can confirm that someone was on site; whether their signature is attributed to the client is another question. When in doubt: have the person who is there sign, and send the Rapport to the client the same day.
No Rapport is worthless because it is unsigned. It remains evidence, together with delivery notes, photos, timestamps, the deployment schedule and the electrician's statement. Only the presumption is missing: the contractor has to prove, the customer may contest. Three things help then:
The invoice itself, the payment term and what applies in the event of default are covered in the article "Unpaid invoice: default, Skonto, retention".
The best moment for the signature is the moment the customer sees the work. A Rapport written up in the office on Friday from notes has no signature, imprecise times and a description from memory — exactly the three weaknesses a customer rightly disputes. A Rapport the electrician writes on the phone and the customer signs on site is in the office at once, and the invoice can go out. Where the customer is not on site, the Rapport goes by e-mail and is signed online — later, but with the same effect. How that works in elektro.box is described under Features.
Is a signed Regie Rapport an acknowledgement of debt? No. It creates a natural presumption that the reported work was done and the expenditure was necessary. Whether the work was ordered, whether the rate is right and whether the invoice is due, the signature does not confirm.
What applies if the customer does not sign the Rapport? The Rapport remains evidence, but the burden of proof lies with the contractor: it has to show that work was done and for how long. Under SIA 118 the site management must check the Rapport and note differences on it; without SIA 118 there is no duty to sign.
Is "subject to reservation" enough as an objection? According to the Federal Supreme Court, no: reservations on the Rapport are not enough, without further explanation, to rebut the presumption of correctness. The customer has to say what he disputes and why.
Who may sign the Rapport? The client or a person representing the client — under SIA 118 the site management, otherwise whoever has been authorised under Art. 32 OR. The signature of a tenant or caretaker proves presence, but is not automatically attributed to the client.
Sources: Swiss Civil Code (ZGB, SR 210), Art. 8; Swiss Code of Obligations (OR, SR 220), Art. 32 and 374, fedlex.admin.ch. Federal Supreme Court, judgment 4A_377/2021 of 29 June 2022, consideration 5.3, and BGE 96 II 61. SIA 118:2013 standard "Allgemeine Bedingungen für Bauarbeiten" (General Conditions for Construction Work), Art. 33 and 47, reproduced in: Canton of Zurich, Baudirektion, "Ergänzungen HBA zur SIA 118", 2018 edition, and Canton of Bern, Tiefbauamt, working aid "Ausmessen und Abrechnen von Bauarbeiten", 1 February 2023. Peter Bürkel, "Regierapporte — ein mögliches Streitobjekt", trade journal Pavidensa. Quotations from these German-language sources are our own translations. This article does not replace legal advice.
We look at a real week from your business — 45 minutes, at your place or on screen.