• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Available in other languages:

Mind the gap? Enforcing transition-period UK judgments in Switzerland revisited

min read

Shortly after our update on “Enforcing judgments in England and Switzerland post-Brexit”, on 24 February 2021 the Zurich District Court handed down a decision on an application to enforce a judgment of the English High Court made in September 2020. This was a request to apply the Lugano Convention after the end of the UK’s transition period with respect to its withdrawal from the EU to a UK judgment rendered during the transition period.

During the transition period, by Articles 127(1) and 129 of the EU/UK Withdrawal Agreement, the UK and the EU agreed that “Union Law” and international agreements concluded by the EU would remain binding and in effect. On this basis, given the EU (and not the UK directly) is a signatory to the Lugano Convention, it seemed tolerably clear that during the transition period itself the Swiss courts should (as the federal Direction des affaires européennes advised) treat the UK as remaining a party to the convention.

As we set out in our 11 February update, the Office fédéral de la justice (OFJ) considers that following the end of the transition period Swiss courts will continue to enforce UK judgments given before the end of the transition period under the Lugano Convention rather than under Swiss domestic law (ie PILA – see Impact of Brexit on the Lugano Convention). The OFJ consider this to be so on the basis of “general principles of international and civil procedural law (droits acquis, prohibition of retrospective legislation and legal certainty requirement), which have inspired art. 63 of the Lugano Convention and art. 197 PILA.”

However, the Zurich District court has disagreed with the OFJ’s view, holding simply that from 1 January 2021 the Lugano Convention ceased to be applicable to the UK and so enforcement of UK judgments from that date is a matter of Swiss domestic law alone. The Zurich court noted that article 63 of the Lugano Convention provides for transitional measures for acceding states, not seceding states, but did not analyse the wider principles cited by the OFJ.

Whilst the position regarding the enforcement of UK judgments made during the transition period in EU countries is clear as a result of Article 67 of the Withdrawal Agreement, which provides that the Brussels Regulation will continue to be given effect in Member States and the United Kingdom in respect to “the enforcement of judgments given in legal proceedings instituted before the end of the transition period,” there now appears to be uncertainty with respect to the position in Switzerland given there is no equivalent provision to Article 67 of the Withdrawal Agreement expressly for the Lugano Convention.

As we continue to monitor developments in the Swiss courts that might resolve this uncertainty, clients wishing to enforce judgments in Switzerland may rest assured that notwithstanding this case the Swiss courts will continue to enforce English judgments under either procedure without significant difference in time or cost. Once the position has been clarified we will provide a further update and, in the meantime, will be happy to discuss with you enforcement issues in general.

If you would like to know more, please contact Bruno Ledrappier on +41 (0)22 591 1847 or at Bruno.Ledrappier@crsblaw.com, or Robert Avis on +41 (0)22 591 18 92 or at Robert.Avis@crsblaw.com.

Our thinking

  • IBA Annual Conference 2026

    Jean-Baptiste Beauvoir-Planson

    Events

  • Succession, governance and the next generation in US Family Offices

    Hugh Dixon

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Why the UK-India Trade Deal Matters for Private Capital

    Kim Lalli

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Wei Kang comments on China’s new tax rule on offshore trusts in The Straits Times

    In the Press

    min read
  • A New Era of Wealth and Estate Planning for PRC High-Net-Worth Families

    Wei Kang

    Insights

    min read
  • Autumn Budget 2026: possible CGT changes and pre-budget planning

    Julia Cox

    Insights

    min read
  • Family team successfully represent high-profile businessman in High Court jurisdiction dispute case

    Matt Foster

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Can you terminate an “indefinite” trade mark licence even if there’s no express right to do so?

    Isabella Ross-Skinner

    Insights

    min read
  • Technology, AI and US Family Offices

    Hugh Dixon

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Reaz Jafri quoted in CNBC on EU crackdown on Caribbean "golden passport" programmes

    In the Press

    min read
  • Charles Russell Speechlys named a ‘Firm to Watch’ by India Business Law Journal

    News

    min read
  • Kerry Stares, Rory Partridge, and Lyla Gilbert write in Packaging Europe about landmark reforms on packaging sustainability regulations in the UK and Europe

    Kerry Stares

    In the Press

    min read
  • Simon Ridpath discusses Charles Russell Speechlys' strategic US expansion with Legal Business

    In the Press

    min read
  • Corporate Deal Highlights - A spotlight on H1 2026

    Sarah Wigington

    Insights

    min read
  • Phillip Colasanto authors article in Tax Notes Federal on strengthening procedural protections for third parties in IRS collections

    In the Press

    min read
  • Dominic Lawrance comments in MoneyWeek on digital and crypto asset inheritance planning

    Dominic Lawrance

    In the Press

    min read
  • Jonathan Burt is quoted in the Financial Times on Gulf families' approach to succession planning

    Jonathan Burt

    In the Press

    min read
  • Maddie Dunn writes in The Grocer on the UK government’s recently published Farming Roadmap

    Maddie Dunn

    In the Press

    min read
  • Charles Russell Speechlys reports strong firmwide revenue growth, with 10% increase to £266.5m

    Simon Ridpath

    News

    min read
  • Cristiana Felisi comments on the legal implications of a lost will and the presumption of revocation

    In the Press

    min read
Back to top