Proceedings in English Before Swiss State Courts, What International Parties Must Know

Last reviewed: 16 May 2026

English proceedings in Switzerland have moved from theoretical debate to operational reality. Since May 2026, the Canton of Bern has permitted international commercial disputes to be conducted entirely in English before its courts, with Zurich scheduled to follow in 2027. For general counsels, cross-border litigation teams, and arbitration practitioners, the reform reshapes forum-selection calculus, opens new interim-relief pathways, and has the potential to reduce enforcement friction in common-law jurisdictions. This guide provides a practical, step-by-step playbook covering every tactical dimension of the change, from statutory basis and eligibility criteria to evidence management, asset freezing, and contract-drafting strategies designed to future-proof cross-border litigation in Switzerland.

Three immediate action points for international counsel:

• Re-evaluate forum clauses. English-language state-court proceedings now compete directly with Swiss-seated arbitration on language convenience, compare cost, confidentiality, and enforceability before defaulting to arbitration.
• Plan interim relief in parallel. Swiss courts can grant freezing orders and provisional measures in English, including in support of foreign or arbitral proceedings, coordinate early.
• Draft for enforcement. An English-language Swiss judgment can reduce translation costs and delays when enforced abroad, but recognition still depends on the applicable treaty framework and foreign procedural law.

Legal Basis and Scope of English Proceedings in Switzerland, What Changed in 2026

Switzerland’s federal structure assigns procedural language to the cantons. The Swiss Civil Procedure Code (CPC), codified at SR 272 and available in an unofficial English translation on Fedlex, establishes the framework for civil proceedings but does not prescribe that proceedings must be conducted exclusively in an official language (German, French, Italian, or Romansh). Rather, the CPC leaves room for cantonal regulation of procedural language, and several cantons have historically allowed documents in other languages to be submitted without translation under certain conditions.

What changed in 2026 is qualitatively different: entire proceedings, pleadings, oral hearings, judicial orders, and judgments, may now be conducted in English, provided the applicable cantonal rules are met. According to analysis published by Pestalozzi, the Canton of Bern implemented its reform in May 2026, targeting international commercial disputes heard before its Commercial Court (Handelsgericht). Zurich has announced a parallel initiative with a planned roll-out in 2027. The Canton of Zug and other cantons are understood to be monitoring the results before committing to their own implementations.

Industry observers expect this phased cantonal approach to accelerate if the Bern pilot demonstrates efficiency gains, particularly in attracting disputes that would otherwise be routed to London, Singapore, or Dutch-language commercial courts.

Key Statutory and Regulatory References

The following references form the legal backbone of English proceedings in Switzerland. Note that the official English translation of the CPC on Fedlex carries no binding legal force, the authoritative text remains the version in the relevant official language. Bär & Karrer’s analysis provides further technical detail on the interplay between federal and cantonal rules.

Which Courts and Cases Are in Scope, Eligibility and Thresholds for Proceedings in English Swiss Courts

Not every dispute qualifies for English proceedings. The Bern reform targets international commercial disputes, cases with a cross-border element and typically involving at least one party domiciled or incorporated outside Switzerland. The Commercial Court in Bern already has subject-matter jurisdiction over commercial disputes exceeding a certain value threshold under the CPC. The English-language pilot operates within that existing jurisdictional framework, meaning the case must independently satisfy Commercial Court jurisdiction requirements before the language option becomes available.

Practical eligibility considerations include:

• International element. At least one party must have its domicile, registered office, or habitual residence outside Switzerland, or the underlying transaction must have a material cross-border dimension.
• Commercial nature. The dispute must relate to business or trade activities of at least one party, consumer, employment, and tenancy matters are excluded.
• Value thresholds. Cantonal rules may impose minimum dispute values for Commercial Court jurisdiction (typically CHF 30,000 in many cantons under CPC Article 6). Specific English-proceedings thresholds, if any, will depend on the cantonal implementing ordinance.

Consent versus Court Discretion

The Bern framework requires the consent of all parties to proceed in English, unless the court determines that English is the appropriate procedural language based on the circumstances (for example, where all contracts, correspondence, and witnesses operate in English). In practice, where one party objects, the court retains discretion to order proceedings in the local official language, German, in Bern’s case. Early indications suggest that the courts will favour English where the underlying commercial relationship was conducted in English and translation into German would impose disproportionate cost or delay.

Cases to Prioritise for English Proceedings

Counsel should consider directing the following dispute types toward English proceedings in Bern:

• Cross-border M&A and SPA disputes where the transactional documents are in English.
• International supply-chain, distribution, and agency disputes governed by Swiss law but negotiated in English.
• Post-award enforcement or setting-aside applications arising from English-language arbitrations seated in Switzerland.
• Intellectual property or licensing disputes between multinational entities using English-language agreements.

Forum Selection, English Swiss Courts versus Arbitration: A Decision Framework

The availability of English proceedings in Switzerland fundamentally alters the swiss arbitration vs litigation calculus. Until now, language was one of the strongest reasons for international parties to choose arbitration over Swiss state courts. With that barrier removed, at least in Bern and soon in Zurich, counsel must weigh forum choice across multiple practical dimensions. Switzerland consistently ranks among the top countries for international arbitration and dispute resolution, and the English-proceedings reform ensures its state courts can now compete for the same caseload.

When State Court Is Preferable

State-court proceedings in English are likely the stronger choice where: (a) cost sensitivity is high and the dispute value does not justify arbitration tribunal fees; (b) public precedent is strategically valuable; (c) urgent interim measures are needed with immediate enforceability within Switzerland; or (d) the parties have not agreed to arbitration and one side resists ad hoc arbitration agreements post-dispute. The recent Switzerland international arbitration changes in 2026 should also be reviewed, as they adjust the landscape for both forums.

When Arbitration Remains Superior

Arbitration retains clear advantages where: (a) confidentiality is critical, particularly in sensitive commercial, IP, or joint-venture disputes; (b) enforcement must be secured across multiple jurisdictions outside the Lugano Convention zone, where the New York Convention’s near-universal reach is decisive; (c) the parties require flexible evidentiary procedures, including document production and cross-examination protocols beyond what Swiss civil-law courts typically permit; or (d) finality is paramount and the risk of lengthy appeal proceedings is unacceptable. The preparation and conduct of arbitration hearings remains procedurally distinct from court hearings in important ways that experienced counsel should evaluate.

Interim Measures and Asset Freezes in Switzerland, Tactical Playbook

One of the most consequential implications of English proceedings in Switzerland is the ability to seek interim measures, including asset-freezing orders and injunctions, in English, both within the main proceedings and in support of foreign or arbitral proceedings. Swiss courts have long been recognised as effective venues for provisional relief, and the language reform makes them more accessible to international litigants who previously faced translation barriers at the most time-sensitive stage of a dispute.

Procedure for Seeking Interim Relief in English

Under the CPC (Articles 261–269), a party may apply for provisional measures where it can demonstrate: (a) a prima facie entitlement to the claimed right; (b) a threat of not easily reparable harm; and (c) proportionality of the requested measure. In courts that now permit English proceedings, the application, supporting evidence, and hearing can all be conducted in English.

Key procedural steps include:

• File the application with urgency. Swiss courts can hear emergency applications within 24–72 hours in genuinely urgent cases. Prepare a concise application setting out the factual basis, the right to be protected, and the specific relief sought.
• Submit evidence in English. Contracts, correspondence, bank records, and expert reports in English can be filed directly without certified translation in English-proceedings courts, a significant time saving.
• Request ex parte relief where justified. Under CPC Article 265, the court may grant provisional measures without hearing the opposing party if delay would cause irreparable harm. The applicant must show particular urgency and accept that the order may be modified or lifted once the opposing party is heard.
• Provide security for costs. The court may require the applicant to post security to cover potential damages to the opposing party if the measure proves unjustified (CPC Article 264).

Evidence Requirements and Ex Parte Applications

The evidentiary standard for interim measures in Switzerland is lower than for final relief, the applicant must make out a prima facie case, not prove the claim on the balance of probabilities. Documentary evidence is critical: bank statements demonstrating dissipation risk, contractual provisions showing the right being protected, and witness declarations confirming urgency all strengthen the application. In English proceedings, all such evidence can be filed in its original language, removing a friction point that previously caused delays of days or weeks.

Co-ordinating with Arbitral Emergency Relief

Where an arbitration clause exists, Swiss courts remain competent to grant interim measures under PILA Article 183, even in support of proceedings before an arbitral tribunal. This principle is well established and is not affected by the language of court proceedings. The tactical question is whether to seek relief from a Swiss court (which can order enforceable measures quickly, including ex parte) or from an emergency arbitrator under the Swiss Rules or ICC Rules (which offers confidentiality and party-appointed decision-making but whose orders may face enforcement difficulties in certain jurisdictions).

The likely practical effect of English proceedings will be to make Swiss courts a more attractive first-stop venue for interim relief in international disputes, particularly where the assets to be frozen are located in Switzerland and the applicant needs an immediately enforceable order. As Wilberforce Chambers has observed, translation challenges can critically delay freezing-order applications; removing that obstacle through English proceedings is a material procedural advantage.

Evidence, Hearing Logistics, and Document Management

Conducting cross-border litigation in Switzerland in English requires careful attention to evidence management, translation policies, and hearing logistics. While the reform eliminates the requirement to translate pleadings and core documents into German (in Bern), certain practical constraints remain. Practical Law (Thomson Reuters) provides useful baseline guidance on service requirements that applies alongside the new English-language framework.

Practical Checklist for Evidence and Translations

• Pleadings. Draft and file all pleadings (statement of claim, statement of defence, reply, rejoinder) in English. No certified translation is required where the court has confirmed English proceedings.
• Documentary exhibits. File documents in their original language. Where an exhibit is in a third language (e.g., Mandarin or Arabic), a certified English translation should be provided, the court will not typically order translation into German if proceedings are in English.
• Witness evidence. Witness statements may be filed in English. Oral testimony at hearings may be given in English. Where a witness does not speak English, the court will arrange interpretation, costs may be allocated to the party calling the witness.
• Expert evidence. Court-appointed experts and party-appointed experts may submit reports in English. Clarify the language requirement with the court at the case-management stage.
• Service of process. Service on foreign parties must still comply with the Hague Service Convention where applicable. The documents themselves can be in English, but service formalities (channels, time limits) remain governed by the Convention and local rules.
• Electronic evidence. Swiss courts increasingly accept electronic submissions. Confirm the court’s e-filing platform and format requirements (PDF, pagination conventions) early in proceedings.
• Judgments and orders. The court will issue its judgment in English. Parties should note that for enforcement abroad, a certified translation into the language of the enforcing state may still be required, but having the original in English often satisfies the requirements in common-law jurisdictions directly.

Enforcement of Swiss Judgments and Orders Issued in English

Enforcement is where the practical benefits of English-language Swiss judgments become most tangible. The enforcement of Swiss judgments abroad is governed primarily by the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law (PILA), the Lugano Convention (for EU and EFTA states), and bilateral treaties. Within the Lugano Convention framework, a Swiss judgment is enforceable in EU/EFTA member states through a streamlined declaration-of-enforceability procedure.

As Loyens & Loeff has analysed, enforcement practice post-Brexit has created new complexity for recognition of English judgments in Switzerland and vice versa. A Swiss judgment issued in English may simplify enforcement in common-law jurisdictions (England and Wales, Singapore, Hong Kong, the United States) where courts and counsel can engage directly with the text without commissioning sworn translations, a process that typically adds weeks and thousands of francs to enforcement costs.

Key enforcement considerations include:

• Lugano Convention states. Enforcement under the Convention does not technically require the judgment to be in English, but an English-text judgment reduces the certified-translation burden when enforcing in, for example, Ireland or Scandinavian states with English-proficient courts.
• Common-law jurisdictions. England and Wales, Singapore, and Hong Kong recognise foreign judgments through common-law principles or statutory regimes. An English-language judgment eliminates the translation step entirely in these jurisdictions.
• New York Convention (arbitral awards). Where a Swiss court issues orders in support of an arbitration (e.g., interim measures), those orders are enforced as court orders, not as arbitral awards. The distinction matters: court orders follow PILA/Lugano, not the New York Convention.
• Domestic enforcement. Within Switzerland, enforcement of judgments between cantons is governed by federal law and is unaffected by the language of the judgment. An English judgment from Bern is enforceable in Zurich, Geneva, or any other canton through the standard enforcement procedure.

Monfrini Bitton Klein’s enforcement overview provides further practical detail on the mechanics of recognising and enforcing foreign judgments within Switzerland, a resource counsel should consult when planning bilateral enforcement strategies.

Interaction with Arbitration and Strategic Cross-Over Tactics

For parties bound by an arbitration clause, the availability of English proceedings in Switzerland does not replace arbitration, but it creates tactical options that did not previously exist, or that were impractical due to language barriers. Understanding where court proceedings and arbitration intersect is critical to effective cross-border litigation strategy in Switzerland.

Do’s and Don’ts When an Arbitration Clause Exists

• Do use Swiss courts for interim relief in support of arbitration. PILA Article 183 expressly preserves the right to seek provisional measures from state courts even where an arbitration clause applies. Filing in English eliminates translation delay at the most urgent stage.
• Do consider Swiss courts for enforcement or setting-aside applications relating to Swiss-seated arbitral awards. These proceedings can now be conducted in English, matching the language of the underlying arbitration.
• Don’t attempt to use English court proceedings to bypass a valid arbitration clause on the merits. Swiss courts will decline jurisdiction and refer the parties to arbitration under CPC Article 61 and PILA Chapter 12.
• Don’t assume that filing in English affects the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction or seat. The seat of arbitration and the procedural law governing the arbitration remain distinct from the language and venue of any parallel court proceedings.
• Do coordinate timing carefully. Filing for court-ordered interim relief immediately before or after commencing arbitration requires strategic sequencing, the court will expect the applicant to demonstrate that arbitral proceedings are underway or imminent.

These tactical considerations are explored further in the context of Switzerland’s 2026 international arbitration changes, which adjust institutional rules and procedural expectations in ways that complement the English-proceedings reform.

Practical Steps for Counsel, Templates and Checklists

The following pre-litigation and drafting checklist is designed for general counsels and external litigation teams preparing to use, or preserve the option to use, English proceedings in Switzerland.

• Contract drafting, forum clause. Include an express submission to the jurisdiction of the Bern (or, from 2027, Zurich) Commercial Court and specify that proceedings shall be conducted in English. Sample language: “Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall be submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commercial Court of the Canton of Bern, with proceedings to be conducted in English.”
• Consent to English. Where possible, include a standalone clause confirming both parties’ consent to English-language proceedings: “The parties consent to the use of English as the procedural language in any court proceedings arising under this agreement.”
• Translation protocol. Agree in the contract on a translation protocol for third-language documents, specifying who bears translation costs and which translation standard applies (certified, sworn, or informal).
• Pre-litigation motion checklist:
  • Confirm the court’s current acceptance of English proceedings (check cantonal implementing ordinance).
  • Prepare a formal motion requesting English proceedings if consent is contested.
  • Assemble all key evidence in English; identify documents requiring translation and budget accordingly.
  • Identify witnesses and confirm their language capabilities; arrange interpreters where necessary.
  • Review enforcement targets, confirm which jurisdictions you may need to enforce in and assess whether an English judgment aids or complicates that process.

English Proceedings in Switzerland, Recommended First Steps for General Counsels

The 2026 reform creates a genuine alternative to arbitration for English-speaking international parties with disputes connected to Switzerland. To capitalise on this change, general counsels should take three immediate steps. First, apply the forum-selection framework above, assessing confidentiality needs, enforcement targets, cost sensitivity, and evidentiary requirements, before defaulting to arbitration. Second, build an interim-relief playbook that includes Swiss court applications in English as a first-response option for asset-freezing and injunctive scenarios. Third, update template contracts to include English-proceedings consent clauses and Bern (or Zurich) forum selections where appropriate. International parties seeking specialist guidance on forum selection and cross-border litigation in Switzerland can explore qualified counsel through the Global Law Experts lawyer directory.

Sources

1. Fedlex, Swiss Civil Procedure Code (English translation)
2. Pestalozzi, Proceedings in English before Swiss state courts
3. Bär & Karrer, The use of English in Swiss civil proceedings
4. Swiss Arbitration Association, Swiss Rules guidance
5. Practical Law (Thomson Reuters), Serving proceedings in Switzerland
6. Loyens & Loeff, Enforcement of English judgments in Switzerland
7. Wilberforce Chambers, Lost in Translation (freezing orders and cross-border practice)
8. Monfrini Bitton Klein, Enforcement of judgments overview, Switzerland