Switzerland

What are the main international treaties or conventions that apply?

The main international treaty governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Switzerland is the Lugano Convention (Convention of Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters concluded in Lugano on 30 September 2007, “LugC”). The LugC applies to judgments in civil and commercial matters rendered in a LugC Member State. In addition to Switzerland, the Member States are the European Union (and therefore all EU Member States), as well as Norway and Iceland. Certain subject matters, such as bankruptcy or arbitration, fall outside the scope of the LugC.

In addition to the LugC, Switzerland is party to a number of multilateral treaties on specific areas of recognition and enforcement. These include, among others:

• the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958 concluded in New York;
• the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of 30 June 2005, which entered into force in Switzerland as of 1 January 2025;
• the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Maintenance Decisions of 2 October 1973; and
• the Hague Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations of 1 June 1970.

What legal principles apply if there is no applicable international treaty or convention?

Where no international treaty or convention applies, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is governed by the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law (PILA).

Under the LugC, the jurisdiction of the foreign court may only be reviewed in limited circumstances, in particular in cases of conflict with sections 3, 4, or 6 of Title II of the LugC concerning mandatory rules of jurisdiction in the area of insurance and consumer-related matters and other areas of exclusive jurisdictions.

By contrast, under the PILA, Swiss courts examine whether the foreign authority that rendered the decision had jurisdiction from a Swiss law perspective. Such “indirect jurisdiction” is recognised where:

• the jurisdiction derives from a provision of the PILA or, in the absence of such provision, if the defendant was domiciled in the state in which the decision was rendered;
• if, in matters involving an economic interest, the parties entered into a choice-of-court agreement valid under PILA standards;
• if, in matters involving an economic interest, the defendant proceeded on the merits without reservation; or
• if, in the case of a counterclaim, the authority that rendered the decision had jurisdiction to hear the main claim and if there is a factual connection between the (main) claim and the counterclaim.

The LugC provides for a ground for refusal where the defendant was not served with the document instituting the proceedings (or with an equivalent document) in sufficient time and in a way enabling them to arrange for their defence (Article 34(2) LugC). The focus is therefore not on formal requirements, but rather on a factual assessment of whether the defendant had an opportunity to defend against the claim. Note that according to the reservation in Article III, paragraph 1 of Protocol No. 1, Switzerland does not apply the following part of the provision in Article 34(2) LugC: “unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so”.

Under the PILA, the assessment is somewhat more formalistic (Article 27(2)(a) PILA). Swiss courts will assess whether formal service was rendered in accordance with either the law of the defendant’s domicile or that of its habitual residence (including the applicable international treaties), unless the defendant proceeded on the merits without reservation.

Swiss law does not provide for a specific procedural deadline for commencing enforcement proceedings of a foreign judgment. Moreover, limitation periods are considered a matter of substantive, not procedural law. In relation to foreign judgments, the Swiss Federal Tribunal clarified that the limitation period is not determined by the lex fori, but rather by the law of the jurisdiction in which the judgment was rendered. This applies, provided the foreign rule serves the same purpose (i.e. barring the enforcement of a claim) as the equivalent Swiss limitation period (Federal Tribunal Decision 148 III 420, consid. 3.3).

Under the LugC, once the court of origin had jurisdiction and the documents instituting the proceedings were duly served, recognition of a judgment may only be refused on the (exhaustively listed) grounds set out in Article 34 LugC. In particular, recognition will be refused if:

• it would be manifestly contrary to public policy in Switzerland;
• the judgment is irreconcilable with a Swiss judgment given in a dispute between the same parties; or
• the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another LugC state or in a third state involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that such earlier judgment could be recognised in Switzerland.

Where no multi- or bilateral treaty applies, Article 27 PILA provides the grounds for refusal. Provided the judgment was rendered by a competent authority and the documents instituting the proceedings were duly served, enforcement can be refused if:

• recognising the decision would be manifestly incompatible with Swiss public policy; or
• a dispute between the same parties and with respect to the same subject matter has been initiated or already decided in Switzerland, or such a dispute has already been decided in a third state, provided that such earlier judgment could be recognised in Switzerland.

As noted above under Question 1, arbitral proceedings fall outside the scope of the LugC. The recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards are governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards ("New York Convention"), to which Switzerland is a party.

Under the New York Convention, a foreign arbitral award is, in principle, recognisable and enforceable in Switzerland upon submission of the duly authenticated award and the original arbitration agreement (or certified copies thereof). Recognition and enforcement may be refused only on the limited grounds exhaustively listed in the Convention, in particular, if:

• the parties to the arbitration agreement were, at the time the agreement was entered into, under some incapacity, or the agreement is invalid under the law to which the parties had subjected it or, in the absence of any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made;
• the party against whom the award was invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present their case;
• the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or outside the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission;
• the arbitral authority was not composed according to the arbitration agreement or according to the law of the country where the arbitration took place; or
• the award is not yet binding on the parties or has been set aside or suspended.

In general, it can be observed that Swiss courts are reluctant to review the findings of an arbitral tribunal and that the grounds for refusal of enforcement are interpreted very narrowly.

In general, court fees in civil matters are determined according to cantonal tariffs, which mostly provide for cost ranges based on the value in dispute. As a result, court fees may vary significantly depending on the canton in which enforcement of a judgment or arbitration award is sought.

In the canton of Zurich, for example, court fees range from CHF 150 to CHF 120,750 for a value in dispute of up to CHF 10 million. For amounts exceeding CHF 10 million, an additional fee of 0.5% of the value exceeding CHF 10 million is added. The court may increase or reduce the fees, taking into account the complexity of the case. In summary proceedings, which apply to recognition and enforcement proceedings, the fees calculated on this basis are subject to a mandatory reduction of 25–50%.

Applications for recognition and enforcement are dealt with in summary proceedings. The duration of such proceedings can nevertheless vary considerably, depending on the enforcement method chosen and the conduct of the defendant. Where, for example, a defendant domiciled abroad is not legally represented in Switzerland and has not provided a Swiss address for service, documents must be served abroad through mutual legal assistance. Depending on the jurisdiction concerned, this may take up to several months. In addition, the High Court of Zurich, for example, typically makes three attempts at service before resorting to service by public notice. Against this background, the timeframe for obtaining a final and binding decision is highly case specific and may range from a few weeks to several months or even years.

Both under the LugC and PILA, an application for recognition and enforcement is to be submitted to the first-instance court at the place where enforcement is sought. Although civil proceedings have been governed by the unified Civil Procedure Code (CPC) since 1 January 2011, some aspects of procedural law, most notably the organisation of the judiciary, remain in the competence of the 26 cantons. As a result, the specific designation of the competent court varies from one canton to another.

Within the framework of the LugC, an appeal against the declaration of enforceability can be lodged with the cantonal superior court within one month of service (Article 43(5) LugC). If the defendant is domiciled in another LugC state, the time limit for filing the appeal is two months (Article 43(5) LugC). The appeal proceedings constitute the first opportunity for the debtor to be heard in relation to the declaration of enforceability. The declaration of enforceability may be refused or revoked only if one of the grounds specified in Articles 34 and 35 LugC exists.

In general, the situation is similar under the PILA. However, in contrast to the LugC regime, first-instance proceedings under the PILA are also adversarial, allowing the defendant to raise its arguments already at that stage.

The decision rendered by the cantonal superior court can be challenged by an appeal to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

For the LugC, an appeal has suspensive effect, although the ordering of protective measures remains reserved (Article 43 LugC in conjunction with Article 327a CPC).

Outside the scope of the LugC, an appeal does not, as a rule, have suspensive effect. Nevertheless, the appellate court may, upon request, stay enforcement if the defendant credibly shows that enforcement would expose them to a risk of not easily reparable harm (Article 325 CPC).

The enforcement of monetary claims is governed by the Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (DEBA). Once the creditor has successfully completed the preliminary phase, they may request enforcement of the claim with the competent debt enforcement office. Enforcement takes place either by way of seizure or by the opening of bankruptcy proceedings. The latter applies if the debtor is listed as an entrepreneur or a commercial entity in the register of commerce. In both cases, the debtor is subject to extensive disclosure obligations.

During the seizure, the debtor must be personally present or ensure that a representative attends. The debtor must disclose all assets, including assets held by third parties as well as claims and other rights against third parties, in so far as necessary to cover the creditor’s claim, interest and costs of enforcement proceedings. This duty to disclose is comprehensive and extends to assets located abroad as well as to assets formerly owned by the debtor. Until sufficient assets to cover the claim have been disclosed, the debtor may not decide which assets are seizable or limit disclosure to selected assets.

Third parties holding assets of the debtor or owing claims to the debtor, such as banks or employers, as well as public authorities (in particular, tax authorities) are required to provide information to the enforcement office to the same extent as the debtor (Article 91, paragraphs 4 and 5 DEBA).

In bankruptcy proceedings, the same disclosure obligations generally apply. In addition, the bankruptcy office publicly announces the opening of the proceedings. The announcement, inter alia, calls on persons in possession of assets belonging to the debtor (e.g. as holders of security rights or for other reasons) to deliver those assets to the bankruptcy office.

Failure to comply with the duty of disclosure constitutes a criminal offence punishable by a fine under Article 323 Swiss Criminal Code (SCC). Any unauthorised disposal of seized assets is prohibited and punishable under Article 169 SCC, while fraudulent attempt to conceal or fictitiously reduce assets constitute a felony under Article 163 SCC and, in addition, may result in the immediate opening of bankruptcy proceedings, even where the debtor is not listed in the commercial register and would not ordinarily be subject to bankruptcy enforcement.

The most common interim measure for monetary claims is the attachment of assets (“Arrest”), aimed at preventing the debtor from disposing of assets located in Switzerland before enforcement can proceed. Article 47 LugC explicitly provides for an applicant to invoke local instruments to safeguard their claim during enforcement proceedings. In Switzerland, these measures take the form of an attachment pursuant to Article 271 et seq. of the DEBA.

An attachment is limited to assets located in Switzerland. For the applicant to be successful with an application, he must submit prima facie evidence regarding the existence and location of the debtor’s assets in Switzerland (e.g. claims against third parties such as banks). If the respective requirements are met, the court will issue an ex parte order, upon which the debt enforcement office will freeze the assets.

For non-monetary claims, the applicant can request interim measures under Articles 261 et seq. CPC, which include preventive, regulatory or performance orders.

From a practical perspective, it is important to keep in mind that exequatur proceedings under the PILA (unlike under the LugC) are adversarial already at the first-instance level. Hence, the debtor must be served with the application and is thereby made aware of the enforcement proceedings at an early stage. Accordingly, it can be crucial for the creditor to apply for ex parte protective measures together with the application for recognition and declaration of enforceability.

Bank accounts

As credit balances on a bank account constitute a claim of the debtor against the bank, such claims are subject to seizure by the competent debt enforcement office at the place where the third-party debtor (i.e. the bank) has its seat. At the enforcement stage, provided the seizure is not successfully challenged, the bank will be instructed to transfer to the debt enforcement office the amount required to satisfy the claim, including interest and costs for the enforcement proceedings. The debt enforcement office will subsequently release the funds to the creditor.

Shares

Shares held by the debtor are subject to seizure and subsequent liquidation. If the shares have a market or stock exchange value, or if all creditors consent, liquidation may be carried out by way of private (freehand) sale. In the absence of such conditions, shares are liquidated by public auction in accordance with the applicable enforcement rules. Upon request by the debtor, early liquidation may be ordered by way of an emergency sale (e.g. in cases where the value of the shares is rapidly declining due to market conditions).

Debts due to the judgment debtor from third parties

Claims or entitlements held by the debtor against third parties may be seized. The debt enforcement office effects the seizure by serving written notice on the third-party debtor. From that moment on, the third party may validly discharge its obligation only by payment to the debt enforcement office. Where the seized claims do not have a market or stock exchange value, the creditor may request that such claims be assigned to them in lieu of payment.

Real estate

Real estate may also be subject to seizure, although stricter formal requirements apply and movable assets generally take precedence where they are sufficient. In such cases, the seizure results in a restriction on disposal, which must be recorded with the land registry. For this purpose, the debt enforcement officer must immediately notify the land registry of the seizure, specifying the time at which the seizure was effected and the amount for which it was carried out. Once registered, third parties may no longer invoke lack of knowledge of the entry. Six months (or up to two years) after the seizure, the creditor can request the sale of the seized real estate property.

Movable property

Movable property of the debtor is seized as part of debt enforcement proceedings. With the exception of cash, bearer securities, jewellery and other valuables, the seized objects are generally left with the debtor (Article 98 DEBA). The debtor is prohibited, under threat of criminal sanctions, from disposing of the seized assets without authorisation from the enforcement office. Provided that the seizure is not successfully challenged, the seized objects are then liquidated by public auction, in specific cases by way of private (freehand) sale. After covering the costs of the enforcement proceedings, the proceeds of the sale (up to the amount of the claim plus interest) are handed over to the creditor. The creditor can request the sale of the seized movable property one month (or up to one year) after the seizure.

As a general rule under Swiss law, the principle of the legal independence of legal entities applies. According to the jurisprudence of the Swiss Federal Court, this principle may be disregarded only in exceptional circumstances. Enforcement may therefore exceptionally extend to assets which, from an economic perspective, are attributable to the debtor, even if they are neither legally owned nor registered in its name (“economic identity”). In addition, a qualified abuse of rights is required, which may be assumed where there is a combination of exceptional circumstances and serious harm to third-party interests (“abuse of rights”, cf. DFT 5A_468/2007 cons. 2.1–2.3).

Swiss law differentiates between co-ownership and joint ownership. In co-ownership, several persons hold fractional shares in an object that is physically undivided. Each co-owner can dispose of their individual share independently. Accordingly, a co-owner’s share can be seized and liquidated in debt enforcement proceedings.

In joint ownership, no individual shares exist and acts of disposal generally require unanimity. In principle, enforcement of joint ownership rights therefore extends only to the debtor’s liquidation entitlement upon dissolution of the joint ownership, not to the asset as such.

From a practical perspective, both jointly owned assets are considered difficult to market. Accordingly, enforcement offices regularly apply a substantial valuation discount when assessing such shares. In practice, discounts of over 50% of the pro rata value are not uncommon.