• 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

  • 10 ways the new APR/BPR rules affect estate administration

    Mary Perham

    Insights

  • How to construe contentious trusts - lessons from recent cases

    Sarah Moore

    Insights

  • Martyn’s Law: What Historic Houses Need to Know

    Naomi Nettleton

    Insights

  • Beyond deals: Turning governance into the Family Office’s strategic edge

    Jeremy Arnold

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Stéphane de Lassus quoted in Le Monde on tax audits and the role of holding companies in France

    Stéphane de Lassus

    In the Press

  • The 1975 Act 50 Years On: Looking Back and Looking Forward

    Tamasin Perkins

    Insights

  • What assets can a Family Investment Company (FIC) hold?

    Edward Robinson

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Uncertain tax treatment: When nobody knows the right answer, should you still have to notify?

    Jonathan Burt

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • eprivateclient and thewealthnet quote Louise Paterson and Samantha Ruston on geopolitics and the art market

    Louise Paterson

    In the Press

  • A new chapter for new arrivals: the FIG regime and long-term residence

    Sophie Hart

    Insights

  • LCIA Announces Consultation on Revising Arbitration Rules

    Gareth Mills

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Charles Russell Speechlys strengthens its position in the latest Legal 500 EMEA directory, with 22 firm rankings

    News

  • Farm Business Tenancies: Guidance for long-term FBTs published

    Emma Preece

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys appoints Robert Lundie Smith as Head of Intellectual Property

    Robert Lundie Smith

    News

  • From vision to results: Strategic considerations for Family Offices

    Marcus Yorke-Long

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Applicability of the Doctrine of Force Majeure During Unprecedented Times in Bahrain

    Mazin Al Mardhi

    Insights

  • Today's Family Lawyer quotes James Riby on an ‘extraordinary’ Court of Appeal case that highlights the importance of disclosure

    James Riby

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys wins ‘Family Law Legal Team of the Year’ at WealthBriefing European Awards 2026

    Shona Alexander

    News

  • Miranda Fisher comments in the Financial Times on child custody arrangements and the impact of geopolitics

    Miranda Fisher

    In the Press

  • The BBC's Motion to Dismiss President Trump's $10 Billion Defamation Claim: Jurisdiction, Free Speech, and the "Chilling Effect"

    Claudine Morgan

    Quick Reads

    min read
Back to top