• 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

  • Seminar: National Association of Independent Administrators

    Events

  • Women in Chancery: Speak with Effect and Influence Webinar

    Events

  • Panglossian or Painful: Tax after the US and UK elections

    Jeffrey Lee

    Events

  • Julia Cox, Harriet Betteridge and Alexandra Clarke write for Tax Journal on who might be considered the ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ from an IHT perspective following the UK Autumn Budget

    Julia Cox

    In the Press

  • City AM quotes Charlotte Duly on the long-awaited SkyKick v Sky Supreme Court decision

    Charlotte Duly

    In the Press

  • Document Production in French Set-aside Proceedings: limited powers despite an increasingly extensive scrutiny of the set aside judge

    Simon Le Wita

    Insights

  • Law.com International interviews Robert Reymond on the growth of our Latin America desk

    Robert Reymond

    In the Press

  • Internationally competitive? The post-April 2025 tax rules for non-doms

    Dominic Lawrance

    Insights

  • Navigating the Legal Landscape of Non-Performing Loan Acquisitions in the UAE

    William Reichert

    Quick Reads

  • Autumn Budget 2024: Share incentives

    Tessa Newman

    Quick Reads

  • Navigating the Lion City: A guide to Singapore's business etiquette and superstitions

    Shamma Ahmed

    Quick Reads

  • Global Investigations Review quotes Rhys Novak on the UK government’s new guidance on complying with its forthcoming failure to prevent fraud offence

    Rhys Novak

    In the Press

  • Under my umbr-ETA, ESTA, eh eh… FAO: international visitors to UK from 8 January 2025 – avoid rain and flight anxiety

    Paul McCarthy

    Quick Reads

  • The abolition of perpetuity periods: Time to sound a note of caution?

    Robert Avis

    Insights

  • Passing on family wealth – the Family Law impact of the new inheritance tax changes

    Sarah Jane Boon

    Insights

  • Potential parental disputes about school fees now VAT is to be added

    Sarah Jane Boon

    Insights

  • The new guidance on the offence of failing to prevent fraud – will it lead to a sea-change to anti-fraud compliance mechanisms?

    Rhys Novak

    Quick Reads

  • Obtaining civil remedies in criminal cases: the UAE, Switzerland and France

    James Colautti

    Insights

  • The Halloween Budget – will wealth creators be spooked?

    Dominic Lawrance

    Insights

  • Budget puts the squeeze on additional property purchases

    William Marriott

    Quick Reads

Back to top