Source: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/enforcement-of-foreign-judgments-laws-and-regulations/switzerland
Timestamp: 2018-07-17 10:06:50
Document Index: 3516630

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 25', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 25', 'Art. 335', 'Art. 25', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 137', 'Art. 43', 'Art. 45', 'Art. 34', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 42', 'Art. 45']

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2018 2018 | Switzerland | ICLG
Home Practice area Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2018 Switzerland
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2018 2018 | Switzerland
Treaty between the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the recognition and enforcement of judgments and awards dated 25 April 1968.
Treaty between Switzerland and the Republic of Austria on the recognition and enforcement of judgments dated 16 December 1960.
Treaty between Switzerland and Italy on the recognition and enforcement of judgments dated 3 January 1933.
Treaty between the Swiss Confederation and the German Reich on the recognition and enforcement of judgments and arbitral awards dated 2 November 1929.
Treaty between Switzerland and Spain on the reciprocal enforcement of judgments or decisions in civil and commercial matters of 19 November 1896.
Treaty between Switzerland and the Czech Republic on the reciprocal enforcement of judgments of 21 December 1926.
Switzerland and the Czech Republic.
Treaty between Switzerland and Sweden on the recognition and enforcement of judgments and arbitral awards dated 15 January 1936.
Treaty between Switzerland and Belgium on the reciprocal enforcement of judgments and arbitral awards of 29 April 1959.
Hague Convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict of 14 May 1954 (amended on 15 April 2015).
127 States parties.
European convention on recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning custody of children and on restoration of custody of children of 20 May 1980.
Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom.
See EU Chapter.
Convention on the recognition of divorces and legal separations of 1 June 1970.
Albania Aruba, Australia, China, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, Hong Kong, Italy, Luxembourg, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom.
Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters dated 30 October 2007 (revised Lugano Convention).
European Community, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.
New York Convention on the Recognition and enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards dated 10 June 1958.
Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA).
All countries to which none of the above specific conventions apply.
Swiss Civil Procedural Code (CPC).
Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (DEBA).
With regards to the enforcement of foreign decisions, pecuniary debt is subjected to the Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (DEBA) and specific performance is subjected to the Swiss Civil Procedural Code (CPC).
Under Swiss law, in principle, a foreign decision is considered to be any decision made by a judicial authority acting de jure imperi. It is irrelevant whether this authority is judiciary, administrative or even religious. Such judgment is to be final and binding (see question 2.3 below).
According to the general provisions under the PILA, a foreign decision is recognisable in Switzerland when (Art. 25 PILA):
there is no ground for denial of recognition set in Art. 27 PILA.
that a dispute between the same parties, with the same subject matter, is the subject of pending proceedings in Switzerland or has already been judged there, or that it was judged previously in a third state, provided that the latter decision fulfils the conditions for its recognition.
There is no particular requirement as to the connection to the jurisdiction, although a recognition is likely to be denied if the applicant has no interest in a recognition in Switzerland. As a consequence, the applicant should be in a position to demonstrate a legitimate interest in having the judgment recognised in Switzerland for a Swiss court to accept its jurisdiction. Further, as highlighted previously (see question 2.3 above), the judgment, to be recognised, must have been issued by a competent court as the lack of jurisdiction of the court in the state of origin which would be aground to dismiss the recognition by a Swiss court (Art. 25 PILA).
Depending on the path the judgment creditor follows, the decision on recognition may or may not have a res judicata effect. When recognition is assessed by the court as a prejudicial question in the context, for example, of an application for enforcement of the foreign judgment, the decision of the Swiss court would only bind the parties in that specific dispute, meaning that it would not have a res judicata effect in other cases. In order for the decision on recognition to have a full res judicata effect, recognition must be the subject matter of the application to the court and not only a prejudicial question.
Recognition of foreign decisions is governed by the PILA and the CPC. These statutes provide for several different procedures available to the parties:
Pecuniary claims must be enforced according to the DEBA, and subsidiarily, the CPC.
Enforcement of any other claim is directly submitted to the CPC (Art. 335–352 CPC).
Enforcement proceedings are, in principle, summary proceedings, which are cheaper and quicker than the ordinary proceedings. These proceedings are quicker mainly because parties need to prove their case by way of documentary evidences (physical records). Other means of evidence could be accepted by the judge if the party can provide it immediately, in order to avoid any delay in the proceedings. Finally, the proceedings can be oral or written, at the discretion of the court.
Recognition and enforcement must be brought in front of the first instance court, which differs in each canton. It is possible to appeal the first instance decision, at first to the Cantonal Appeal Court and then to the Swiss Federal Tribunal.
A number of substantive grounds allow the debtor to challenge the enforcement of the foreign decision. As the latter would be recognised by Swiss courts, only the facts which are posterior to the foreign judgment may be invoked by the parties.
The court does not benefit from much discretion in its analysis.
The conditions for recognition and enforcement are to be found in the law and there is not much room for interpretation. Regarding abstract grounds such as public policy, the courts tend to have a restrictive approach to favour as much recognition as possible. In order for the latter to be refused, the violation of Swiss public policy must be gross.
Regardless of the subject matter, the general provisions of the PILA on recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions are applicable (Art. 25ff PILA) (see question 2.2 above). Yet, these general provisions provide for the application of specific provisions, if any.
Thus, one always needs to refer to the specific section of the PILA dealing with the subject matter of the foreign decision in order to apply any lex specialis. Such lex specialis exist, among others, regarding filiation, matrimonial regime, divorce and separation, inheritance, protection of adults and children, adoption, intellectual property, trusts, property law, etc.
Recognition and thus enforcement in Switzerland are denied when a dispute between the same parties and with the same subject matter has already been judged in Switzerland, or it was judged previously in a third state, provided that the latter decision fulfils the conditions for its recognition (Art. 27 para. 2 lit. c PILA; see question 2.2 above).
No matter the applicable substantive law to a foreign judgment, it belongs to the merits of the case that cannot be reviewed by the Swiss courts unless it breaches Swiss public policy (see question 2.10).
Nevertheless, and even though the applicable law is now unified, each canton still has its own judicial and debt enforcement authorities. As a consequence, although the rules are the same, their application can deviate from one canton to another. This is typically the case in respect of the recognition of foreign interim measures that can be granted more or less easily depending on the canton where such requests are filed. Finally, one needs to keep in mind that proceedings in Switzerland might be in French, German or Italian, depending on the canton in which they are conducted.
In a case where Swiss law is applicable to the merits and the judgment establishes the claim, the statute of limitations lasts 10 years from the date of the judgment (Art. 137 of the SCO).
All bilateral treaties set out in question 1.1 have, today, a limited scope in practice. Indeed, they are most often replaced by more recent conventions, such as the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters dated 30 October 2007 (Lugano Convention), and thus lack relevancy. Also, in Switzerland, the most lenient regime should apply to questions of recognition and enforcement, which in most cases is the PILA or multilateral conventions. Therefore, these bilateral treaties, as well as conventions on specific matters, will not be discussed in this chapter.
In Switzerland, the most relevant treaty in respect of recognition and enforcement is obviously the revised Lugano Convention, on which we will focus on in this chapter.
Since the first instance proceedings are not contradictory, grounds for refusal can only be raised and shall only be examined by the appeal court. Once served with the Swiss decision declaring enforceability of the foreign one, the opposing party can launch an appeal (Art. 43 Lugano Convention). The grounds for refusal from which he can benefit from are limited and are set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Lugano Convention (Art. 45 para. 1 Lugano Convention). In essence, recognition shall be refused if the judgment is:
irreconcilable with a judgment given in a dispute between the same parties in the State in which recognition is sought;
Finally, it is worth mentioning that in order for a foreign judgment given in default of appearance to be declared enforceable under the Lugano Convention in Switzerland, the defendant must have been regularly served with the document that instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence (Art. 34 para. 2 Lugano Convention). Switzerland made a reservation to this article in order to strengthen the protection of the defaulting party; Switzerland would refuse enforcement of a judgment given in default of appearance when the defendant was not regularly served, even though the defendant could have commenced proceedings to challenge the judgment. As such, Switzerland is more severe than other Lugano Convention Member States.
Under the Lugano Convention, recognition is automatic and thus does not necessarily require any specific proceedings. Similarly to the PILA (see question 2.3), the creditor may directly file for enforcement without having the foreign decision recognised in a prior and separate proceeding.
Unlike the PILA proceedings, the proceedings to declare a foreign judgment enforceable in Switzerland under the Lugano Convention are not adversarial; once the formalities stated above are completed, the judgment is immediately declared enforceable (Art. 41 Lugano Convention). It is only after the end of the first instance proceedings that the Swiss judgment declaring enforceability is served to the opposing party (Art. 42 para. 1 Lugano Convention).
Under the Lugano Convention, similarly to the PILA, the merits of the case are not reviewed and thus merit-based defences cannot be raised (Art. 45 para. 2 Lugano Convention). As to the grounds for refusal, please refer to question 3.1.
The enforcement methods available to the judgment creditor depend on the qualification of its claim, whether it is pecuniary or another type of claim. The former is governed by the DEBA and the latter by the CPC.
The common methods of the enforcement of a debt are:
Ex parte attachment proceedings: this interim court remedy allows distrain of the assets of the debtor in order to guarantee payment of his debt. As it is an ex parte interim measure, it must be confirmed by commencing collection proceedings.
the debtor has no residence in Switzerland; in that case, if there is no other ground for attachment, the debt must have a sufficient link with Switzerland or it must be based on an acknowledgment of indebtedness;
the creditor has obtained a definitive or provisional certificate of loss against the debtor (insolvency or bankruptcy); or
the creditor files a request with the Debt Collection Office for the issuance of a Summons for Payment;
the threat of a criminal sanction (a fine for contempt of court) or financial penalty;
an order for surrogate measures (a third person must perform the obligation in lieu of the debtor); and
It is too early to assess whether the amendments will ever enter into force, and, if they do, when.
The recognition and enforcement of interim injunctions can give rise to various issues and are not always straightforward. Whilst it is debated whether they can be enforced under the PILA, interim injunctions clearly can be enforced under the Lugano Convention. However, the enforcing of foreign interim injunctions might be more difficult than requesting such injunctions in Switzerland directly, pending the foreign outcome on the merits.