Litigation in Switzerland

Overview

Describe the general organisation of the court system for civil litigation.

Switzerland’s civil justice system is federal, with cases handled by cantonal first‑instance courts, cantonal high courts, and ultimately the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. Some cantons have specialised courts (eg, commercial, labour, tenancy).

Judicial independence is guaranteed. Court structure and judge appointments vary by canton; Supreme Court judges are elected federally by Parliament.

Switzerland has no binding‑precedent system, but Federal Supreme Court rulings are highly persuasive. Civil proceedings are judge‑driven, with no juries; cases are decided by single judges or professional/mixed panels.

Give an overview of basic procedural principles that govern civil litigation in your jurisdiction.

Switzerland’s civil procedure rests on key principles, which are set forth by the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Parties must act in good faith (article 52 CPC). Hearings and oral judgments are generally public, and decisions must be accessible (article 54).

Parties must present the relevant facts and evidence, unless the law requires the court to investigate ex officio (art 55). Factual allegations are the crux in civil litigation as a fact that would not be formally and correctly alleged by a party cannot be taken into consideration by the judge. Further, the full allegation must be made before the first instance judge with no possibility to correct any missing allegation at a later stage of the proceedings (except in case of nova). Under iura novit curia principle, the court applies Swiss law on its own and determines foreign law, with possible assistance from the parties (article 57). Although the judge will apply the law irrespective of the argumentation raised by the parties, it is usual that the parties will also allege their legal argumentation in their briefs.

The non ultra petita rule prevents courts from granting more than requested or less than acknowledged (article 58). The right to be heard – in the Constitution and article 53 CPC – guarantees each party the opportunity to comment, present evidence, make motions and participate fully in proceedings.

Describe the general organisation of the legal profession.

Legal practice in Switzerland is governed by the Federal Act on the Freedom of Movement for Lawyers. To appear before Swiss courts, a lawyer must be entered in a cantonal register, which requires a Swiss (or recognised foreign) law degree, and passing the cantonal bar exam (article 7). Once registered, lawyers may appear before all Swiss courts, as there is no split bar. Profession is fused and a lawyer will do both solicitor and advocacy work.

They must also meet personal criteria: no incompatible criminal convictions, no deed of loss, and the ability to practise independently (article 8). Professional liability insurance of at least 1 million Swiss francs is mandatory.

EU/EFTA lawyers may act temporarily without registration but remain subject to Swiss conduct rules. For longer‑term practice under their home title, they must register with the cantonal authority. Full Swiss registration is available by passing a proficiency exam or, after three years of practising Swiss law under their home title, by showing sufficient competence.

Give a brief overview of the political and social background as it relates to civil litigation.

Switzerland’s political and social climate fosters a pragmatic, low‑intensity litigation culture grounded in strong trust in the courts. Litigation is reliable but not a first resort, and Swiss courts are valued for efficiency, predictability, and low backlogs, making the jurisdiction attractive for commercial disputes.

Reform efforts currently focus on strengthening collective redress, which does not yet exist under Swiss law. Recent revision of the Swiss Civil Procedural Code also allows for proceedings to be conducted in English, provided that the canton so decides and implements. Some cantons, such as Bern, Geneva and Zurich, are currently working on implementing this new opportunity into their cantonal system.

Geneva also fosters the project to implement a dedicated commercial court for international disputes, while Zurich is also working on expanding its current commercial court to offer a forum for international disputes, too.

Several initiatives aim at fostering an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, in particular mediation, where significant efforts are dedicated to enhancing such a means of dispute resolution in a view to also reduce the load on the courts.

What are the sources of law and rules governing international jurisdiction in civil matters?

Switzerland’s international jurisdiction is set mainly by treaties and the Private International Law Act (PILA), with treaties taking priority. The Lugano Convention governs EU/EFTA civil and commercial cases, providing general and special fora, protective and exclusive rules, and strict lis pendens.

If no treaty applies, the PILA controls, with the defendant’s Swiss domicile as the main forum, supplemented by necessity jurisdiction, attachment fora and choice‑of‑court and subject‑specific rules.

Since 1 January 2025, the Hague Choice of Court Convention applies to exclusive forum clauses between Contracting States, requiring the chosen court to hear the case and others to decline; it now governs relations outside Lugano but within the Hague network (eg, the UK).

Other conventions may apply in specific fields. Arbitration is outside Lugano; international arbitrations seated in Switzerland are governed by Chapter 12 PILA, and courts must decline jurisdiction if a valid arbitration clause exists.

Once seised, Swiss courts conduct proceedings under the CPC, regardless of the jurisdictional source.

What are the criteria for determining the jurisdiction and venue of the competent court for a civil matter?

In Swiss civil matters, the default forum is the court at the defendant’s domicile, with special fora for contracts (place of performance) and torts (place of the harmful event). When EU/EFTA connections exist, these rules largely mirror the Lugano Convention, which also provides protective fora for consumers, employees and insured parties, and applies lis pendens in favour of the court first seised. Parties may select a forum through a jurisdiction clause, which is generally upheld under the PILA and, where applicable, the Lugano Convention, subject to safeguards in protected areas.

When a party is foreign, the applicable treaty framework – typically the Lugano Convention – governs jurisdiction, not nationality. Within Switzerland, venue is determined by the CPC and cantonal law and does not change simply because a litigant is foreign.

Does your jurisdiction commonly attract disputes that have a nexus with other jurisdictions?

Switzerland is not the natural forum for disputes with stronger foreign ties, but it still attracts cross‑border cases thanks to trusted courts and easy access to Swiss‑based assets, especially bank accounts. Jurisdiction is predictable: Lugano covers EU/EFTA cases, PILA applies otherwise, and, since 2025, the Hague Choice of Court Convention strengthens exclusive forum clauses.

Swiss litigation is document‑driven, has no broad discovery, follows a loser‑pays rule and usually starts with conciliation. Commercial courts offer streamlined proceedings, direct appeals and low backlogs.

Exclusive jurisdiction clauses are strategic – especially outside Lugano – because the Hague Convention requires non‑chosen courts to decline jurisdiction. Under Lugano, early filing is crucial, as lis pendens favours the first court seised and prevents torpedo actions.

Creditors frequently seek early ex parte attachments of Swiss assets to secure leverage and recovery.

How will a court treat a request to hear a dispute that is already pending before another forum?

Convention, a court seised second must stay its case until the first court decides on jurisdiction and must decline if that court is competent, reflecting the Convention’s lis pendens rule.

If the Lugano Convention does not apply, article 9 PILA requires Swiss courts to suspend proceedings if a recognisable foreign decision is expected within a reasonable time and to step aside once that decision is issued. Swiss law also defines when Switzerland is considered first seised and even a voluntary conciliation request can establish international lis pendens. If the parallel forum is an arbitral tribunal and a valid arbitration agreement exists, Swiss courts must decline jurisdiction under the PILA.

How will the courts treat a dispute that is, or could be, subject to an arbitration clause or an agreement to arbitrate, including in interim proceedings?

When a Swiss court is seised despite an arbitration clause, it first examines whether an arbitration agreement exists, is valid, and covers the dispute. If the seat is in Switzerland, courts conduct only a prima facie review (article 7 PILA). If the seat is abroad, they may fully review jurisdiction under article II(3) of the New York Convention. The Swiss court will then favour arbitration in the case of a valid arbitration clause.

Courts act only upon objection: if no party invokes the arbitration clause, the court assumes acceptance of its jurisdiction. For domestic arbitration, article 61 CPC likewise requires a prima facie review and obliges the court to decline jurisdiction unless the defendant appears without reservation, the clause is manifestly invalid or unenforceable, or tribunal formation fails for reasons attributable to the defendant; however, courts must fully review whether a dispute exists and whether it is arbitrable.

In both international and domestic arbitration, state courts retain concurrent jurisdiction to grant interim relief.

May courts in your country review arbitral awards on jurisdiction?

Swiss courts may review arbitral awards on jurisdiction in set‑aside proceedings. For international arbitrations seated in Switzerland, the Federal Supreme Court is the sole forum and may annul an award if the tribunal wrongly accepted or declined jurisdiction. Preliminary jurisdiction rulings can be challenged immediately, and challenges must be filed within 30 days.

In practice, the Court fully reviews legal issues but generally accepts the tribunal’s factual findings, making set‑aside success rates very low.

For domestic arbitration, the CPC provides a similar ground to contest incorrect jurisdiction decisions, with recourse also going directly to the Federal Supreme Court.

Are anti-suit injunctions available?

Swiss courts generally do not issue anti‑suit injunctions to stop foreign proceedings, even in arbitration‑related disputes, reflecting Switzerland’s comity‑based approach under the Lugano Convention and European case law limiting such measures.

Which entities are immune from being sued in your jurisdiction? In what circumstances? In what circumstances can creditors enforce a court judgment or arbitral award against a sovereign or a state entity?

Switzerland applies restrictive state immunity: foreign states are immune for sovereign acts but not for commercial acts.

A state may be sued only if the case has a sufficient Swiss link. Enforcement follows the same rule: assets used for public functions are immune, while commercial assets may be seized if a Swiss nexus exists. Some assets are presumed sovereign unless proved otherwise.

States may waive immunity; forum or arbitration clauses waive jurisdictional immunity, but execution usually requires a separate explicit waiver. To enforce a judgment or award, creditors must show the act was commercial, the dispute has a Swiss link, and the targeted assets are not sovereign. The same limits apply under the New York Convention and ICSID.

Creditors may seek freezing or enforcement measures against attachable Swiss assets, but must still overcome immunity restrictions.

How are proceedings commenced? To what extent will a court actively lead the proceedings and to what extent will the court rely on the parties to further the proceedings?

As a rule – and subject to certain exceptions – parties must attempt conciliation before filing a lawsuit (article 197 ff. CPC). If no settlement is reached, the conciliation authority issues an authorisation to proceed, and the claimant then has three months to file suit.

Swiss law provides three types of proceedings: ordinary (articles 219–242), simplified (articles 243–247), and summary (articles 248–270). Except where the law requires the court to investigate ex officio, parties must allege the facts, present evidence, and contest the opponent’s case, while the court applies the law on its own (iura novit curia, article 57 CPC).

Once the case begins, the court manages the proceedings, issues procedural orders, and may seek an amicable settlement at any time (article 124 CPC). Parties need only comply with directions, though they may request adjustments to the conduct or timetable of the case.

What are the requirements for filing a claim? What is the pleading standard?

Swiss pleading requirements vary by procedure:

• Ordinary proceedings: The claim must state the parties, requested relief, amount in dispute, facts, evidence for each fact and date/signature (article 221(1) CPC). Detailed facts are required, but legal arguments are optional. Filings may be paper or electronic (article 130).
• Simplified proceedings: The submission need only describe the dispute’s subject matter and may be made orally (article 244).
• Summary proceedings: The application follows ordinary proceedings formalities (article 219) but may be filed orally in simple or urgent cases (article 252(2)).

Simplified proceedings apply to claims up to 30,000 francs and certain specific categories regardless of value. Summary proceedings apply where required by law, notably for clear‑case relief, injunctions, interim measures and non‑contentious matters. Ordinary proceedings apply by default.

What are the requirements for answering claims? What is the pleading standard?

The requirements and pleading standards applicable to statements of claims are applicable to statements of defence (article 222(2) CPC). In its statement of defence, the defendant is required to set forth which facts alleged in the statement of claim are admitted or disputed.

What are the rules regarding further briefs and submissions?

In ordinary and simplified proceedings, parties file a statement of claim and a statement of defence, and the court may allow a second exchange (article 225 CPC). If no further exchange or instruction hearing occurs, new facts and evidence may still be introduced at the start of the main hearing (article 229(2)).

In summary proceedings, each party normally files only one submission, and new facts and evidence may be added freely.

After the file is closed, new facts or evidence are admitted only as real nova (arising later) or improper nova (previously undiscoverable) (article 229). Before closure, a claimant may amend the claim if it stays within the same type of proceedings and is factually connected, or if the defendant agrees (article 227(1)). Amicus briefs are not allowed in Swiss civil procedure.

To what degree are civil proceedings made public?

Switzerland applies the open‑court principle: hearings and oral judgments are usually public, decisions must be accessible, and deliberations may or may not be public depending on cantonal rules. Court filings are generally not accessible to the public; only the parties may inspect the file. First‑instance decisions are usually not published, while appellate and Federal Supreme Court rulings appear in anonymised form.

Some courts offer media portals giving accredited journalists limited access, underscoring that filings remain restricted. Hearings are public unless the court orders otherwise for confidentiality or other legitimate reasons. That being said, in practice, there is generally no public or journalist attendance in civil cases. Filming and photography are normally prohibited without prior authorisation under cantonal rules, meaning cameras are generally not allowed in Swiss civil courts.

Pretrial settlement and ADR

Will a court render (interim) assessments about any factual or legal issues in dispute? What role and approach do courts typically take regarding settlement? Are there mandatory settlement conferences between the parties at the outset of or during the litigation?

Swiss civil courts do not issue advisory opinions on the merits during a case. They may, however, give a non‑binding preliminary view on factual or legal issues during instruction or settlement hearings to help parties assess risk and encourage settlement, without binding their final judgment.

Courts also issue procedural and evidentiary orders and may ask clarifying questions, but the definitive assessment of facts and law comes only in the final decision. Judges often play an active role in promoting settlement and may convene instruction hearings expressly for that purpose.

Apart from the mandatory conciliation phase (subject to the exceptions in article 198 CPC), no settlement conference is required, though courts routinely schedule instruction hearings with settlement on the agenda.

Is referral to mediation or another form of ADR an option, or even mandatory, before or during the litigation?

At the parties’ request, the conciliation phase may be replaced by mediation. Mediation is confidential, and any statements made in that process are inadmissible in later court proceedings (article 216 CPC). During litigation, the court may propose mediation, and the parties may also jointly request it at any time (article 214 CPC).

There is no mandatory mediation, although it can be clearly encouraged, notably in Geneva, where a dedicated law with the purpose of favouring mediation was enacted in 2025.

Before a case is pending before a court, the parties may agree to resolve their dispute through ADR. Non-litigious ADR mechanisms are barely regulated in Switzerland.

Interim relief

What are the forms of emergency or interim relief?

Under the CPC, courts may order any interim measure needed to avert imminent harm (article CPC). These include, in particular:

• prohibitory or mandatory injunctions;
• orders to restore a lawful state;
• directions to registry authorities or third parties;
• performance in kind; and
• payment orders where permitted by law.

For monetary claims, creditors can seek an attachment under the Swiss Federal Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (DEBA) to freeze assets in Switzerland, typically on a prima facie basis and often without prior notice to the debtor.

What must a petitioner show to obtain interim relief?

To obtain interim relief in Switzerland, the applicant must credibly show a threatened or ongoing infringement of a protected right and a risk of harm that cannot be easily remedied (article 261 CPC). Urgency is required; in acute cases, the court may issue ex parte measures, followed by a prompt hearing (article 265 CPC). Relief is tailored to preserve the status quo, regulate the disputed relationship, or secure future enforcement, and may be denied if the respondent offers suitable security. The court may also require the applicant to post security for potential losses (article 265(3) CPC).

For precautionary evidence‑taking, the applicant must show a risk of loss of evidence or a legitimate interest in obtaining it promptly; such requests fall under the interim‑measures regime (article 158 CPC).

Decisions

What types of decisions (other than interim relief) may a court render in civil matters?

In Swiss civil proceedings, courts may issue two types of decisions: final decisions and interim decisions (which are different from interim relief).

A final decision (article 236 CPC) ends the case, subject to appeal. It may dismiss the claim as inadmissible or decide the merits. Courts may also render partial final decisions on only part of the dispute. Depending on the relief sought, a final decision may order performance, declare the existence of a right, or create/modify/dissolve a legal relationship.

An interim decision (article 237(1) CPC) resolves a preliminary substantive or procedural issue that, if reversed on appeal, could dispose of the case or save significant time or cost. Interim decisions do not conclude the proceedings and must be appealed immediately; they cannot be challenged later with the final decision (article 237(2) CPC).

At what stage of the proceedings may a court render a decision? Are motions to dismiss and summary judgment available?

A court issues a final decision once the proceedings are complete and the facts are sufficiently established to rule on the claims with proper legal reasoning. An interim decision may be issued during the case where a potential contrary appellate ruling could immediately dispose of the matter and significantly save time or costs.

The court may also – on its own motion or at a party’s request – limit the case to preliminary factual or legal issues or to specific prayers for relief (article 125 CPC). Courts often confine proceedings to threshold questions such as limitation, standing, res judicata or jurisdiction. This mechanism functions similarly to a motion to dismiss, allowing the court to address issues that could lead to early termination of the case.

Under which circumstances will a default judgment be rendered?

Under the CPC, a court may issue a default decision when a party misses a deadline or fails to appear despite proper summons (article147(1)). This commonly occurs when a defendant does not file the statement of defence and lets the grace period lapse.

If a party fails to appear, the case normally proceeds without them (article 147(2)). The court need not grant new deadlines, and the absent party does not forfeit its procedural rights – it may continue participating later. However, the case will process ordinarily and the judge will have to assess it. The defaulting party does not entail that the other party will automatically prevail.

A defaulting party may seek reinstatement by showing the default was not, or only slightly, its fault (article 148). The request must be filed within 10 days after the obstacle ceases, and – if a decision has already been notified – within six months of its entry into force.

How long does it typically take a court of first instance to render a decision?

The duration of Swiss civil proceedings varies with the case’s complexity and the court’s workload. That being said, first‑instance cases seldom conclude in under two years.

Parties

How can third parties become involved in proceedings?

Under the CPC, third parties may participate in several ways:

Principal intervention (article 73). A third party claiming a superior right to the object in dispute may file a claim against both parties before the first‑instance court. This is only allowed at first instance.
Accessory intervention (articles 74–77). Anyone with a credible legal interest in one party’s success may intervene at any stage to support that party. The intervenor may take all compatible procedural steps, but actions contradicting the principal party are disregarded. An adverse outcome generally binds the intervenor unless they were prevented from raising arguments or the principal party acted wilfully or with gross negligence.

Third‑party notice (articles 78–80). A party may notify a third person from whom it expects recourse. The notified person may intervene or, with consent, replace the notifying party; if they decline, the case proceeds without them. The legal effects mirror those of accessory intervention.

Third‑party action (article 81). The notifying party may directly assert its contingent claims against the notified third party. This is available only in ordinary proceedings and was expanded in the 2025 CPC revision.
Substitution of parties (article 83). If the subject matter of the dispute is transferred during proceedings, the acquirer may take over the case. If the subject matter is unchanged, substitution requires the opposing party’s consent unless special succession rules apply.

Fact-Finding and Evidence

Describe the rules of fact-finding in your jurisdiction.

As a rule, the parties themselves must set out the facts on which their claims and defences rest. In certain areas of civil litigation, this principle is softened: the court takes an active role in establishing the facts with the parties’ assistance (article 55(2) CPC).

Will a court take or initiate the taking of evidence or will it rely on the parties to request the taking of evidence and to present it?

In Swiss civil litigation, fact‑finding is primarily party‑driven: parties must allege the relevant facts and offer evidence, while courts generally do not investigate on their own (article 55(1) CPC). Each party is entitled to admission of timely, properly offered, relevant, and lawful evidence (article 152 CPC). Courts may take evidence ex officio only where the law requires it or when serious doubts arise about an undisputed fact (articles 55(2), 153(2), 296 CPC).

Evidence offering is also strictly ruled in terms of timing and the full offering is to be made in the early stage of the proceedings without possibility to add any further evidence once that step has ended.

Courts may also order precautionary evidence‑taking if evidence is at risk or there is a legitimate interest in securing it early (article 158 CPC). Parties and third parties must cooperate (article 160 CPC), and the court freely assesses the evidence collected (article 157 CPC). In practice, courts rely on parties to present evidence but retain limited powers to act on their own where required by law or reliability concerns.

Is an opponent obliged to produce evidence that is harmful to it in the proceedings? Is there a document disclosure procedure in place? What are the consequences if evidence is not produced by a party?

Swiss civil procedure is party‑driven and has no discovery phase. Parties need only produce specifically identified, material documents and must cooperate in evidence‑taking, subject to privilege and secrecy (articles 55(1), 160(1)(b) CPC).

Courts admit properly offered evidence and may protect confidential information through measures such as redactions or restricted access (articles 152, 156 CPC). Privilege limits production, covering communications with external counsel and, since 1 January 2025, certain in‑house legal communications that meet statutory criteria (articles 160(1)(b), 166, 167a CPC).

There is no general disclosure; courts reject fishing expeditions and require precise, fact‑linked requests. If a party unjustifiably withholds evidence, the court may draw adverse inferences (article 157 CPC). Third parties who refuse to cooperate without valid grounds may face fines, coercive measures, or cost orders (article 167 CPC).

Please describe the key characteristics of witness evidence in your jurisdiction. Is witness preparation allowed?

Anyone who is not a party may testify about facts they personally perceived (article 169 CPC). The court directs the examination and questions the witness (article 172 CPC), while a party may ask the court to put additional questions or, with the court’s permission, put them themselves (article 173 CPC). Witnesses are obliged to tell the truth (article 171(1) CPC).

In Swiss civil proceedings, witness preparation is not permitted – there are no written witness statements – and even contacting a witness can be problematic. A lawyer who seeks to influence a witness is deemed to be in breach of his or her professional duties and may incur criminal liability. That said, contacting a (potential) witness is allowed if it serves the client’s interests, does not hinder fact‑finding, and is materially necessary (Swiss Supreme Court Decision 136 II 551). If these conditions are not met and the witness is, in fact, influenced, the lawyer risks disciplinary measures and possible criminal charges.

Who appoints expert witnesses? What is the role of experts?

In Swiss civil proceedings, experts are appointed by the court – either ex officio or at a party’s request – and are subject to the same recusal rules as judges. If the bench relies on its own technical expertise, the parties must be informed (article 183 CPC).

The court formulates the expert questions, invites party comments, provides the file, and sets deadlines (article 185). Experts must tell the truth, are warned of criminal consequences, and receive a fee (article 184). With authorisation, they may conduct their own enquiries and must disclose the results in their report (article 186).

The court decides whether the report is written or oral, may summon the expert for explanations, and must allow the parties to seek clarifications (article 187). Experts provide neutral technical input, which the court evaluates under free assessment of evidence.

Parties remain free to offer party-expert evidence, which will not have the same value as a court-appointed expert. Since 1 January 2025, party‑appointed expert reports are given additional weight as they are deemed documentary evidence and not a mere party allegation as it was before.

Can parties to proceedings (or a party's directors and officers in the case of a legal person) act as witnesses? Can the court draw negative inferences from a party's failure to testify or act as a witness?

Under Swiss civil procedure, parties cannot testify as witnesses; only non‑parties may give evidence on facts they personally observed (article 196 CPC). Parties (and their representatives, eg, directors) can, however, still be heard as a party.

Since 1 January 2025, companies may refuse cooperation regarding activities of their in‑house legal service (article 167a) under specific requirements. When a refusal to cooperate is legitimate, the court cannot treat the disputed fact as proven (article 162) and there is therefore no automatic adverse inference that can be drawn out of such a refusal. If a third party unjustifiably refuses, the court may impose a fine of up to 1,000 francs, threaten criminal sanctions, apply coercive measures, or order costs (article 167).

How is foreign law or foreign-language documentation introduced into the proceedings and considered by the courts?

Courts apply the law ex officio under iura novit curia, though parties may need to assist, and in monetary disputes they may have to establish foreign law. If foreign law cannot be determined, Swiss law applies (article 16(2) PILA). In simple cases, courts may research foreign law themselves.

Foreign‑language documents generally require translation, though English documents are often accepted when the court understands English and no party objects. Before the Federal Supreme Court, translations may be waived (article 54(3) of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSA)), and challenges to arbitral awards may be filed in English (article 77(2-bis) FSCA).

Since 1 January 2025, cantons may establish international commercial courts where proceedings may be conducted in English (articles 6(4)(c), 129(2)(b) CPC). If first‑instance proceedings are in English, submissions to the Federal Supreme Court may also be filed in English (article 42 FSCA).

What standard of proof applies in civil litigation? Are there different standards for different issues?

In Swiss civil litigation, the standard is full proof: the judge must be convinced by the evidence, though not with absolute certainty (article  157 CPC). Parties must prove all legally relevant and disputed facts, including practice, usages or foreign law in financial cases (article 150 CPC).

Lower standards apply in certain procedures. For interim measures and precautionary evidence, the applicant must credibly show a right or evidence at risk (articles 261, 158 CPC). Summary proceedings rely mainly on documents, with other evidence admitted only if it does not delay the case or is legally required (article 254 CPC). Clear‑case relief is available only when facts are undisputed or immediately provable and the law is clear (article 257 CPC).

In all settings, courts apply the free assessment of evidence under article 157 CPC.

Appeals

What are the possibilities to appeal a judicial decision? How many levels of appeal are there?

Swiss cantons generally have two judicial instances. At the cantonal level, the CPC provides two ordinary remedies: appeal (articles 308 ff.) and objection (articles 319 ff.), with the applicable remedy depending on the nature of the decision and the amount in dispute.

The final cantonal decision – unless an exception applies – may then be challenged before the Federal Supreme Court if the statutory requirements are met (articles 72 ff. FSCA).

A party may also request revision, asking the final instance that issued the decision to reopen it on specific grounds, such as newly discovered decisive facts or evidence that could not previously be submitted, or if the judgment was influenced by criminal conduct (article 328 CPC; article 121 FSCA).

What aspects of a lower court's decisions will an appeals court review and by what standards?

The scope of review depends on the remedy. Appeals may challenge both legal errors and incorrect factual findings (article 310 CPC), while objections are limited to legal errors or manifestly incorrect factual findings (article 320 CPC).

In appeals, new facts and evidence are admissible only if submitted without delay and if they could not have been presented earlier (article 317 CPC). In objections, novas are generally inadmissible (article 326 CPC).

Before the Federal Supreme Court, review is limited to legal issues and manifestly erroneous factual findings (article 97 FSCA). New facts or evidence are considered only if triggered by the lower court’s decision itself (article 99 FSCA).

How long does it usually take to obtain an appellate decision?

The duration of appellate proceedings is wholly dependent on the complexity of the case and on the workload of appellate courts.

That being said, in Swiss civil matters, a cantonal appellate decision typically takes about 12 to 18 months. By contrast, appeals to the Federal Supreme Court are generally faster: publicly available summaries put the average duration of proceedings at roughly six months, and recent data indicate that most civil appeals are disposed of within a year, with only a small fraction lasting longer than two years.

Role of Domestic Courts In Arbitration Matters

In which conditions does your domestic arbitration law apply? Does it apply equally to purely domestic and international arbitrations, and to commercial and investor-state arbitrations?

Switzerland distinguishes domestic arbitration (Part 3 CPC) from international arbitration (Chapter 12 PILA) based on the parties’ domiciles at the time of the arbitration agreement and the seat in Switzerland. Chapter 12 PILA applies if at least one party was not domiciled in Switzerland when the arbitration agreement was concluded.

Parties to a domestic arbitration may opt out of the CPC in favour of the PILA (article 353 CPC). Conversely, parties to an international arbitration may opt into the CPC (article 176(2) PILA).

Both regimes broadly define arbitrability. Under the CPC, any claim over which parties may freely dispose is arbitrable (article 354). Under the PILA, any claim involving a financial interest is arbitrable, and states cannot invoke their own law to contest arbitrability or capacity (article 177).

For investor–state arbitration, the governing rules depend on the chosen framework: ICSID proceedings follow the self‑contained ICSID Convention, while treaty‑based arbitrations seated in Switzerland (eg, under UNCITRAL Rules) are international arbitrations governed by Chapter 12 PILA unless the parties validly opt for the CPC.

Give an overview of instances in which state courts come into play in domestic and international arbitration proceedings.

Swiss courts intervene in arbitration only at specific points. A court seised of a dispute must decline jurisdiction if a valid arbitration agreement exists (article 7 PILA). They also assist with tribunal constitution: for international cases, courts at the seat appoint, replace, or remove arbitrators when needed (articles 179–180b PILA); in domestic cases, the designated cantonal court performs these tasks (article 356(2) CPC).

Courts may fix the seat in domestic arbitration, receive awards for deposit, and certify enforceability (articles 355–356 CPC; article 193 PILA). They can enforce tribunal‑ordered provisional measures, assist with evidence, and support foreign arbitrations for measures or evidence in Switzerland (articles 183–185a PILA). In domestic cases, they assist with all procedural acts (article 356 CPC).

After an award, courts handle challenges: for international awards, only the Federal Supreme Court may set aside or revise on the limited grounds in articles 190–190a PILA, and foreign parties may waive recourse (article 192 PILA). In domestic arbitration, a cantonal superior court hears challenges, with possible further appeal unless the parties opt for a cantonal final instance (articles 356, 389–395 CPC).

Swiss courts also recognise and enforce foreign awards under the New York Convention (article 194 PILA) and may certify enforceability of Swiss‑seated international awards (article 193 PILA).

Describe the rules governing recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in your jurisdiction. To what extent do domestic courts review arbitral awards on the substance?

Switzerland applies a two‑track system. Swiss‑seated awards are enforceable once the court at the seat issues a certificate of enforceability (international: article 193 PILA; domestic: designated cantonal court under article 356(1)(b) CPC).

Foreign awards are recognised and enforced under the New York Convention via art 194 PILA, and Swiss courts apply the Convention even to awards from non‑signatory states. They do not review the merits and consider only the Convention’s limited refusal grounds (article V).

For international Swiss‑seated awards, set‑aside is limited to the exhaustive grounds in article 190(2) PILA, with the Federal Supreme Court as the sole review body (article 191).

For domestic awards, a narrow substantive review exists: annulment may be sought for an arbitrary outcome or clearly excessive costs (article 393(e)–(f) CPC), but there is no full merits appeal.

Overall, Swiss courts favour enforcement and intervene only on strictly defined statutory grounds.

Are class actions available?

Switzerland has no class actions, so practitioners rely on workarounds such as claim assignments. The only statutory collective mechanism is the group action under article 89 CPC, which, unlike a class action, does not allow the plaintiff organisation to seek restitution and is rarely used.

Are derivative actions available?

Under Swiss corporate law, shareholders may – under the conditions of article 756 CO – bring claims against directors for losses suffered by the company. Creditors may also seek compensation on the company’s behalf under article 757 CO.

If the company is bankrupt, any creditor may request assignment of the company’s legal claims if all creditors waive them, pursuant to article 260 DEBA.

Are fast-track proceedings available?

Simplified and summary proceedings are generally faster than ordinary proceedings, but the CPC specifies the limited situations in which they may be used.

In addition, the CPC allows relief in clear cases (article 257), a form of summary proceedings available when the facts are undisputed or immediately provable and the legal situation is clear. This option may be used even where ordinary proceedings would normally apply.

Is it possible to conduct proceedings in a foreign language?

The revised CPC of 2025 enables parties to international commercial cases to choose English as the language of court proceedings. It is now up to the cantons to implement this possibility in their cantonal procedural law, which is still a work in progress.

The FSCA also enables party to draft their submission in English in set-aside proceedings against arbitral awards and in appeal proceedings when proceedings at the cantonal level have been conducted in English (article 42(1-bis) and 77(2-bis)).

Effects of judgment and enforcement

What legal effects does a judgment have?

As a rule, judicial decisions are binding only on the parties to the proceedings, particularly with respect to lis pendens and res judicata. Depending on the nature of the matter decided, however, such decisions may also produce effects vis-à-vis third parties.

Although the res judicata effect of a decision is, in principle, limited to its operative part, the precise scope of that effect often can be determined only by reference to the court’s reasoning. This is especially true where an action has been dismissed or where the decision involves set-off.

What are the procedures and options for enforcing a domestic judgment?

Enforcement is governed by articles 335 ff. CPC, but money judgments and orders to provide security are enforced under the DEBA. If attachment grounds exist, the creditor may seek an attachment; otherwise, debt enforcement starts with a summons to pay after filing a request with the enforcement office.

If the judgment already specifies enforcement measures, it can be enforced directly; otherwise, the creditor must apply to the enforcement court. For obligations to act, refrain or tolerate, the court may issue criminal warnings, fines, coercive measures or order substitute performance.

Under what circumstances will a foreign judgment be enforced in your jurisdiction?

Enforcing a foreign judgment in Switzerland first requires recognition. The procedure is simpler when the judgment comes from a Lugano Convention state.

Under both the Lugano Convention and the PILA, once recognition is granted, the judgment may be enforced either through exequatur proceedings followed by enforcement, or – if it orders payment – by directly initiating debt‑enforcement proceedings, with recognition examined as a preliminary question.

Recognition may be refused on limited grounds, such as a manifest breach of Swiss public policy or conflicting res judicata.

Once recognised, final foreign judgments ordering non‑monetary relief are enforced under the CPC.

Costs and Funding

Will the successful party's costs be borne by the opponent?

As a general rule, costs are borne by the unsuccessful party, which must cover the court costs, its own legal costs, and the party costs of the successful party.

If neither party is entirely successful, the costs are apportioned according to the outcome of the case. In exceptional circumstances, the court may allocate costs differently and at its own discretion.

It is worth noting that the party indemnity that is owed to the successful party only covers a fraction of the actual costs incurred by the party and is not a full indemnity.

May a party apply for legal aid to finance court proceedings? What other options are available for parties who may not be able to afford litigation?

A party may receive legal aid if they lack sufficient means and their case has reasonable prospects. Legal aid covers advances, security for costs, court fees and, where needed, appointed counsel.

It does not shield the party from paying the opposing side’s costs if they lose. Legal aid is normally limited to natural persons, but may exceptionally be granted to legal entities when the case concerns their sole asset and the beneficial owner is also insolvent.

Proceedings may also be funded through legal‑expenses insurance.

Are contingency fee arrangements permissible? Are they commonly used?

Pure contingency fees are generally prohibited under Swiss law. A success‑based component is allowed only if the lawyer’s remuneration does not depend entirely on the outcome: a fixed fee exceeding 50% of the total must be agreed up front and must cover costs while allowing a modest profit.

This restriction applies only to proceedings before courts or authorities. In other contentious matters, pure contingency fees may be agreed.

Is third-party funding allowed in your jurisdiction?

Third-party funding is allowed although that industry is not well developed in Switzerland. Third-party funders do not have any control over the proceedings.

Are there fee scales lawyers must follow? Are there upper or lower limits for fees charged by lawyers in your jurisdiction?

Lawyers may freely set their hourly rates and fees.


Global Arbitration Review, Know-how Litigation Switzerland, Litigation: Switzerland, June 2026