• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Available in other languages:

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

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 2025

    Simon Ridpath

    Events

  • London International Disputes Week: Trusts hurt: the fraud lawyer, the trust, and the avenues of attack (and defence)

    Tamasin Perkins

    Events

  • London International Disputes Week: Navigating International M&A Disputes: Insights and Strategies for 2025

    Stephen Burns

    Events

  • ESG Duties for Directors: Legal Obligations and Risks Under English Company Law

    Katie Bewick

    Insights

  • Conclusive truth or abusive sleuth - can covert recordings be used in family law proceedings?

    Charlotte Posnansky

    Insights

  • UK Real Estate Opportunities for Asia Capital

    Simon Green

    Events

  • Law Commission publish their recommendations for reform on Wills

    Charis Thornton

    Quick Reads

  • What does the UK Immigration White Paper mean for businesses, families and entrepreneurs?

    Paul McCarthy

    Insights

  • Directors’ Disqualification Under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986: What UK Directors Need to Know

    Claudine Morgan

    Insights

  • The Financial Times quotes Catrin Harrison on IHT Budget changes and the impact on wealthy UK expats

    Catrin Harrison

    In the Press

  • Thomas Snider and Adrian Mayer write for African Law & Business on rising levels of private investment between the UAE and Africa

    Adrian Mayer

    In the Press

  • The Telegraph quotes Tamasin Perkins on the Law Commission’s recent report: Modernising Wills Law

    Tamasin Perkins

    In the Press

  • The Law Commission: Modernising Wills Law Report - a disputes perspective

    Lydia Kember

    Quick Reads

  • Retrospectively changing Indefinite Leave to Remain rules for those currently on the 5 year route to a 10 year route is unlawful and unfair

    Paul McCarthy

    Quick Reads

  • Aline Wey Speirs writes for The Global Legal Post on the mediation process in Switzerland

    Aline Wey Speirs

    In the Press

  • World Intellectual Property Review quotes Olivia Gray on the post-Brexit treatment of design rights

    Olivia Gray

    In the Press

  • Bloomberg quotes Dominic Lawrance on the appeal of Italy for non-dom individuals considering relocating from the UK

    Dominic Lawrance

    In the Press

  • Unravelling the Global Single Family Offices Tapestry

    James Carter

    Insights

  • Navigating IHT Concerns in Land Promotion: Hope Value and Some Innovative Solutions for Landowners and Developers

    Sam Jelley

    Quick Reads

  • UK Immigration Reform – deeper restrictions on the horizon

    Paul McCarthy

    Quick Reads

Back to top