Cross‑border Commercial Litigation in Switzerland (2026): English Proceedings, Cross‑border Evidence and Enforcement

Cross‑border commercial litigation in Switzerland in 2026 looks fundamentally different from just two years ago. A suite of procedural reforms, headlined by amended rules under the Federal Act on Private International Law (PILA) and the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) effective 1 January 2026, has streamlined how foreign parties obtain evidence from Switzerland, how witnesses are examined via videoconference and how voluntary disclosure operates in transnational disputes. Simultaneously, the Canton of Bern launched its International Commercial Court chamber accepting proceedings in English in May 2026, with Zurich expected to follow on a phased basis. For multinational companies and their counsel, these changes create new tactical opportunities and new compliance obligations that demand immediate attention.

Key Takeaways: What Companies Must Do Now

• Audit your forum‑selection clauses. With English proceedings now available in Bern, contracts pointing disputes to Switzerland can leverage English as the procedural language, reducing translation costs and time.
• Update your cross‑border evidence playbook. The 2026 PILA/Hague amendments replace prior Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) authorisation with a notification regime for many videoconference witness examinations, accelerating the evidence‑gathering timeline.
• Review your enforcement and asset‑recovery strategy. The new evidence rules do not alter the recognition and enforcement tests under PILA, but they expand the toolkit available during enforcement proceedings, an advantage for creditors pursuing asset recovery in Switzerland.

1. Quick Facts and Timeline: Cross‑Border Commercial Litigation Switzerland 2026 Reforms

Understanding the sequencing of the 2025–2026 reforms is essential for any party planning or defending a cross‑border claim in Switzerland. Below is a consolidated timeline of every milestone that matters.

Timeline of Key Legislative and Cantonal Milestones

Each of these milestones has direct operational consequences. The sections below address each reform in turn, with checklists and procedural steps designed for in‑house counsel managing live or anticipated disputes.

2. Can You Sue in Switzerland in 2026? International Jurisdiction and Forum Selection

The threshold question in any cross‑border commercial litigation in Switzerland is whether Swiss courts have jurisdiction. Under PILA, jurisdiction can be established through several channels, each carrying different strategic implications for foreign parties.

The primary bases for international jurisdiction in Switzerland include contractual forum‑selection clauses designating a Swiss court, the domicile or registered seat of the defendant in Switzerland, special jurisdictional rules (such as the place of performance of the obligation in dispute) and, in certain tort matters, the place where the harmful act occurred. Where the Lugano Convention applies, covering disputes between Switzerland and EU/EFTA member states, its rules on jurisdiction take precedence over PILA’s domestic provisions.

For companies considering whether to bring claims in Switzerland, the jurisdiction is particularly attractive when the defendant holds assets in Switzerland (facilitating later enforcement and asset recovery), when the contract already designates a Swiss forum, or when the dispute involves Swiss banking or financial sector participants, sectors in which Swiss courts have deep institutional expertise.

Forum‑Selection Checklist

• Verify your clause. Confirm whether your contract contains a valid, exclusive or non‑exclusive jurisdiction clause pointing to Switzerland. Under PILA, a written agreement is generally required.
• Identify the correct canton and court. Jurisdiction clauses should specify not just “Switzerland” but the canton (e.g., Zurich, Geneva, Bern). Where the clause is silent on the canton, domicile‑based rules apply.
• Assess defendant assets. Before filing, map the defendant’s known Swiss assets (bank accounts, real property, shareholdings). This is critical for freezing orders and eventual debt collection in Switzerland.
• Consider lis pendens rules. If parallel proceedings exist abroad, Swiss courts will evaluate priority under the Lugano Convention or PILA to avoid jurisdictional conflicts.
• Evaluate the Lugano Convention. For defendants domiciled in EU/EFTA states, the Lugano Convention’s rules, not PILA, govern jurisdiction. Special heads of jurisdiction (place of performance, place of harmful event) apply differently under each regime.

Strategic Scenarios: Contract Choice of Law and Forum

Industry observers expect that the availability of English proceedings in Bern, and eventually Zurich, will make Swiss forum‑selection clauses more attractive in international contracts, particularly for parties from common‑law jurisdictions who have historically preferred London or Singapore. Companies negotiating new contracts should consider whether a Swiss forum clause, combined with an English‑language procedural election, delivers cost savings compared to traditional arbitration seated in Geneva or Zurich. Where confidentiality is paramount, however, arbitration may remain preferable because Swiss state court proceedings are generally public.

3. Proceedings in English Switzerland 2026: What Changes and Which Cantons Permit Them

The introduction of proceedings in English before Swiss state courts represents one of the most significant developments in cross‑border commercial litigation in Switzerland in recent decades. Until 2026, all Swiss court proceedings were conducted in the official language of the relevant canton, German, French or Italian. Foreign parties had to bear the cost of translating every submission, exhibit and expert report.

In May 2026, the Canton of Bern’s International Commercial Court (ICC) became the first Swiss state court to accept English as the procedural language in qualifying commercial disputes. Zurich has announced a phased adoption expected to commence in 2027. The practical meaning of “English proceedings” is that written submissions, oral hearings and, where the court permits, the judgment itself may be conducted and issued in English. Certain formal documents (e.g., summonses, enforcement titles) may still need to be issued in the official cantonal language, but the substantive proceedings are in English.

How to Request English Proceedings: Step‑by‑Step

1. Confirm eligibility. The Bern ICC pilot is limited to commercial disputes exceeding a specified value threshold and where both parties consent (or the court permits it in the interests of efficiency). Verify that your matter qualifies before filing.
2. File your request with the statement of claim. The election for English proceedings should be made at the time of filing, ideally in the statement of claim itself. Late requests may be permitted at the court’s discretion but risk delay.
3. Agree with the opposing party where possible. Joint applications carry significantly more weight than unilateral requests. Where you anticipate opposition, prepare a reasoned submission explaining why English proceedings serve procedural economy.
4. Engage English‑qualified Swiss counsel. Even in English proceedings, Swiss procedural rules (CPC) apply. Counsel must be admitted to practice in Switzerland and familiar with the canton’s procedural requirements, English language alone is not sufficient.

Practical Tips for Foreign Counsel

Foreign in‑house teams and international law firms collaborating with Swiss counsel should be aware of several practical realities. First, while proceedings may be in English, Swiss substantive law (including the Swiss Code of Obligations) will apply if the contract is governed by Swiss law, legal concepts may not have direct English equivalents. Second, translation of key Swiss statutory provisions may still be necessary for the court file. Third, the likely practical effect will be that translation costs decline significantly but are not eliminated entirely. Finally, English proceedings do not change the court’s application of Swiss procedural rules, including rules on evidence, costs and appeals.

4. Cross‑Border Evidence After the 2026 Reforms: A Practical Step‑by‑Step Guide

The 2026 amendments to the cross‑border evidence framework represent the most consequential procedural reform for parties litigating across borders involving Switzerland. The revised rules, effective 1 January 2026, modernise the regime governing evidence‑taking in aid of foreign proceedings and facilitate videoconference examinations, voluntary disclosure and mutual legal assistance. For practitioners, this is the section that demands the most careful operational attention.

Under the prior regime, foreign courts or parties seeking to take evidence in Switzerland, whether by examining witnesses, collecting documents or conducting expert inspections, generally required prior authorisation from the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ). This process was slow, unpredictable and created friction in time‑sensitive commercial disputes. The amended framework shifts the default for many evidence‑taking activities from prior authorisation to notification, meaning parties must notify the FOJ but can proceed without waiting for formal approval in a wider range of circumstances.

Checklist: Obtaining Documents and Witness Evidence from Switzerland

1. Determine whether the Hague Evidence Convention applies. If the requesting state is a party to the Hague Evidence Convention, the request should follow the Convention’s channels (Letters of Request via the designated Central Authority). Switzerland’s amended declaration broadens the scope of permissible evidence‑taking methods under the Convention.
2. Identify whether FOJ notification or authorisation is required. Under the 2026 reforms, videoconference witness examinations conducted by a foreign court or tribunal generally require notification to the FOJ rather than prior authorisation. However, physical evidence‑taking on Swiss territory by foreign officials (e.g., an on‑site inspection) may still require authorisation.
3. Prepare the notification. The notification to the FOJ should include the identity of the requesting court or tribunal, the nature of the evidence sought, the names and roles of the witnesses or experts, the proposed method (e.g., videoconference), the date and time, and confirmation that Swiss data protection and criminal law constraints will be respected.
4. Serve the witness or document holder. If seeking witness testimony, the witness must be properly notified in accordance with Swiss law. Voluntary cooperation is preferred; compelled testimony may require judicial assistance through formal Hague channels.
5. Conduct the examination. Videoconference examinations must comply with Swiss procedural safeguards. The witness has the right to refuse to testify on grounds recognised by Swiss law (e.g., professional privilege, self‑incrimination). A Swiss lawyer should be present or available to advise the witness on Swiss law rights.
6. Preserve the record. Ensure the examination is properly recorded and that the record complies with the evidentiary requirements of the requesting court’s jurisdiction as well as Swiss data protection rules.

When to Use FOJ / Hague Procedures

Data Privacy and Criminal Risk (Art. 271 SCC) Considerations

Parties and their counsel must remain vigilant about Swiss criminal law when gathering cross‑border evidence in Switzerland. Article 271 of the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC) prohibits acts performed on behalf of a foreign state on Swiss territory without authorisation. While the 2026 reforms relax the evidence‑taking regime, they do not repeal Article 271, meaning that unauthorised evidence gathering by foreign officials or agents on Swiss soil remains a criminal offence. The practical implication is that all evidence‑taking must be channelled through the reformed FOJ notification/authorisation framework or through the Hague Evidence Convention.

Switzerland’s Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP), revised in 2023, also applies. Cross‑border transfers of personal data obtained as evidence must comply with the FADP’s adequacy requirements or rely on one of its transfer mechanisms (standard contractual clauses, binding corporate rules or consent). Failure to comply can expose both the requesting party and the Swiss entity producing data to regulatory enforcement and civil claims.

5. Enforcement of Judgments and Awards in Switzerland: A Practical Playbook

Winning a cross‑border commercial dispute is only half the battle. The enforcement of judgments in Switzerland, whether those judgments originate from a Swiss court, a foreign court or an arbitral tribunal, requires careful procedural execution and tactical planning.

Step‑by‑Step Enforcement Checklist

1. Identify the enforcement regime. For Swiss domestic judgments, enforcement follows the CPC and cantonal enforcement rules. For foreign court judgments, recognition and enforcement are governed by PILA (or the Lugano Convention for EU/EFTA‑origin judgments). For arbitral awards, the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards applies.
2. Apply for recognition (foreign judgments). File an application with the competent Swiss court at the place of enforcement. The application must include the original judgment (or certified copy), proof of service on the defendant, and evidence that the judgment is final and enforceable in the country of origin.
3. Assess grounds for opposition. The Swiss court will refuse recognition if the foreign judgment violates Swiss public policy, if the defendant was not properly served in the foreign proceedings, or if the foreign court lacked jurisdiction under Swiss conflicts rules.
4. Obtain the enforcement title. Once recognised, the foreign judgment becomes enforceable. The creditor then initiates formal debt collection proceedings through the relevant Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Office (Betreibungsamt).
5. Pursue provisional measures. If there is a risk that the debtor will dissipate assets, apply for a freezing order (Arrest) under Article 271 of the Federal Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Act (DCBA). This can be done before or concurrently with the recognition application.

Asset Recovery Tactics

Effective asset recovery in Switzerland depends on early intelligence and rapid execution. The following tactics are commonly deployed in cross‑border enforcement scenarios:

• Pre‑litigation asset searches. Engage Swiss investigators or use public registries (land registry, commercial register) to map the debtor’s Swiss asset footprint before commencing proceedings.
• Bank account freezing orders (Arrest). Switzerland’s banking centre status means that debtors frequently hold assets in Swiss bank accounts. A freezing order under Article 271 DCBA can be obtained on an ex parte basis where the creditor demonstrates a prima facie claim and a risk of asset dissipation.
• Third‑party disclosure. Post‑judgment, Swiss enforcement law permits certain inquiries to banks and other third parties holding debtor assets. The 2026 evidence reforms facilitate faster identification of assets during enforcement proceedings.
• Cross‑border coordination. Where the debtor holds assets in multiple jurisdictions, coordinate Swiss enforcement with parallel proceedings abroad. The Lugano Convention provides streamlined enforcement within EU/EFTA states.

Common Defences and How to Counter Them

• Public policy objection. Debtors frequently argue that the foreign judgment violates Swiss public policy. Swiss courts interpret this ground narrowly, it applies only where enforcement would produce a result fundamentally incompatible with Swiss legal principles. Counter by demonstrating that the foreign proceedings respected due process and substantive fairness.
• Lack of proper service. A common technical defence. Counter by maintaining a comprehensive record of service (affidavits, proof of delivery, process server certificates) throughout the foreign proceedings.
• Jurisdictional challenge. The debtor may argue that the foreign court lacked jurisdiction under Swiss conflicts rules. Counter by reference to the contractual forum clause, the debtor’s domicile or the applicable convention (Lugano or bilateral treaty).
• Pending appeal in the country of origin. Swiss courts may suspend recognition proceedings if the judgment is subject to appeal abroad. Counter by seeking enforcement of provisional measures (freezing orders) while the appeal is pending.

6. Tactical Considerations and Risk Matrix for Cross‑Border Commercial Litigation in Switzerland

Litigation strategy in cross‑border disputes is never purely legal, it involves cost‑benefit analysis, evidence preservation tactics and forum‑shopping considerations. The 2026 reforms add new variables to this calculus.

Risk Matrix for Companies

When to Mediate or Settle

Swiss courts actively encourage settlement, and many cantons require or strongly recommend an initial conciliation hearing before full proceedings commence. For cross‑border disputes, mediation can be particularly cost‑effective where the parties have an ongoing commercial relationship and where the dispute turns on factual disagreements rather than legal principle. Early indications suggest that the availability of English proceedings in Bern may make court‑annexed mediation more accessible to foreign parties who previously faced language barriers.

When to Litigate in Swiss Courts

Litigation in Swiss state courts, rather than arbitration, is most advantageous when the claimant seeks a public, precedent‑setting judgment, when the dispute value does not justify arbitration costs, when the defendant’s assets are concentrated in Switzerland (making enforcement straightforward) or when the claimant wishes to take advantage of the new English proceedings regime. For disputes exceeding a certain value threshold involving sophisticated commercial parties, the Bern ICC chamber offers a compelling combination of procedural efficiency, English‑language proceedings and Swiss judicial quality.

7. Practical Templates and Checklists for Cross‑Border Disputes

To support companies and their counsel in navigating the 2026 reforms, the following resources are designed for immediate operational use. Each can be adapted to the specific circumstances of your dispute.

• Pre‑litigation evidence preservation checklist. A step‑by‑step guide to identifying, preserving and securing critical documents and witness testimony before formal proceedings are commenced, essential for preventing spoliation in cross‑border disputes.
• English proceedings request template. A model application for requesting English as the procedural language before the Bern International Commercial Court, including the key submissions required to satisfy eligibility criteria.
• FOJ notification template. A pro forma notification to the Federal Office of Justice for videoconference witness examinations under the 2026 reforms, including all required fields (identity of tribunal, witness details, proposed method and date, data protection confirmation).
• Enforcement and debt collection checklist. A procedural roadmap covering the recognition application, freezing order requests, debt collection office procedures and asset recovery steps for cross‑border enforcement in Switzerland.

For access to these templates or to discuss their application to a specific dispute, connect with a qualified Swiss commercial litigator through the Global Law Experts Switzerland lawyer directory.

Conclusion: Navigating Cross‑Border Commercial Litigation in Switzerland in 2026

The 2026 reforms have made Switzerland a materially more accessible, and in many cases more attractive, forum for cross‑border commercial disputes. The shift from authorisation to notification for videoconference evidence, the codification of voluntary disclosure, and the introduction of proceedings in English in Bern collectively reduce the time, cost and procedural friction that have historically deterred some foreign parties from choosing Swiss courts. At the same time, the fundamentals of Swiss litigation, rigorous procedural discipline, a well‑regarded judiciary and effective enforcement mechanisms, remain firmly in place.

For companies with active or anticipated cross‑border disputes touching Switzerland, the immediate priorities are clear: review existing forum‑selection clauses to capitalise on the new English proceedings regime, update internal evidence‑gathering protocols to reflect the reformed FOJ notification procedures, and develop an early asset‑tracing and enforcement strategy. Cross‑border commercial litigation in Switzerland in 2026 rewards preparation, and the reformed framework gives well‑advised parties a genuine strategic advantage.

To find a qualified Swiss commercial litigation specialist, explore the Global Law Experts Switzerland directory or browse the international commercial law practice guide and the international litigation guide for further resources.

Sources

1. Bär & Karrer, New Rules to Facilitate Cross‑Border Civil Proceedings
2. Pestalozzi, Proceedings in English before Swiss State Courts
3. SMBC Law, Modernized Framework for Cross‑Border Civil Proceedings in Switzerland
4. Lenz & Staehelin, Taking of Evidence in Aid of Cross‑Border Civil Proceedings
5. Chambers & Partners, Litigation 2026: Switzerland Practice Guide
6. Lawbrary, Federal Act on Private International Law (PILA)
7. Swiss Arbitration Association, Swiss Arbitration Summit 2026