• 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

  • Dominic Lawrance and Catrin Harrison write for Tax Journal on the implications of the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of ‘A Taxpayer v HMRC’

    Dominic Lawrance

    In the Press

  • The Telegraph quotes Sarah Jane Boon on Labour’s plans for cohabitation reform

    Sarah Jane Boon

    In the Press

  • Something Changed – Landlord recovers possession of iconic music venue

    Samuel Lear

    Quick Reads

  • When is 20% not 20%? The real impact of the proposed changes to business property relief on trading companies

    Sarah Wray

    Quick Reads

  • Joseph Evans, Cassidy Fan and Jessica Boxford write for New Law Journal on the future of insolvency: a digital asset revolution

    Joseph Evans

    In the Press

  • Relocating to Switzerland: trusts

    Alexia Egger Castillo

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys finds that Gen Z prioritises financial planning and saving amidst growing economic challenges

    Sally Ashford

    News

  • Law 360 quotes Stewart Hey on the potential integration of the PSR into the FCA and the impact on APP fraud reimbursement

    Stewart Hey

    In the Press

  • Singaporean Court Declines to Revisit SIAC Registrar’s Administrative Decision

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

  • "I have finished the court case and I have decided that now is not the right time for you to see your Mum" - Judges writing letters to children could become the norm

    Matt Foster

    Quick Reads

  • New "In-House Counsel Privilege" in Swiss law

    Pierre Bydzovsky

    Insights

  • The World’s Most Exclusive Gold Card

    Kurt Rademacher

    Quick Reads

  • What do the proposed changes to business property relief mean for Investors and Entrepreneurs and their businesses?

    Mary Perham

    Insights

  • Swiss Anti-Corruption Laws: A Guide to Bribery Offences, Compliance, and Penalties

    Daniela Iselin

    Insights

  • The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - the inheritance tax Consultation on agricultural and business property

    Sarah Wray

    Quick Reads

  • Pet Ownership and Family Breakdown: Transatlantic Treatment of Pets on Divorce

    Miranda Fisher

    Quick Reads

  • Passage of the English Arbitration Act 2025 into Law

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

  • Mary Bagnall writes for FMCG CEO on the recent Thatchers v Aldi court ruling

    Mary Bagnall

    In the Press

  • RTHK interviews Patrick Chan on the rise of sports arbitration in Hong Kong

    Patrick Chan

    In the Press

  • Bank of Mum and Dad PLC

    George Harrison

    Quick Reads

Back to top