Enforcing Russian and Chinese Judgments in Switzerland (2026): Practical Steps for Commercial Creditors

Enforcing foreign judgments Switzerland has become one of the most pressing questions for commercial creditors in 2026, as cross-border claims tied to Russian and Chinese debtors increasingly point toward assets held in Swiss banks, real estate and corporate structures. The absence of a general enforcement treaty with either Russia or China means creditors cannot rely on automatic reciprocity and must instead navigate Switzerland’s domestic recognition regime under the Federal Act on Private International Law. Layered on top of that framework is a fast-evolving sanctions environment that shapes what can, and cannot, be recovered from frozen or blocked Russian-linked assets.

This guide sets out the practical steps, common obstacles and asset-recovery strategies that in-house counsel, insolvency professionals and litigation teams need to move quickly and decisively. Throughout, it distinguishes the Russian route from the Chinese route, because the procedural map and the practical traps differ in material ways.

Executive summary, key takeaways

• Two routes. Foreign court judgments are recognised under the Federal Act on Private International Law (PILA); foreign arbitral awards travel the New York Convention route.
• No treaty reciprocity. Neither Russia nor China is a party to the Lugano Convention, so creditors rely on Switzerland’s domestic recognition regime rather than automatic mutual enforcement.
• Principal refusal grounds. Lack of indirect jurisdiction, breach of Swiss public policy (ordre public), irreconcilability with a prior decision, and improper service are the recurring obstacles.
• Speed matters. Provisional freezing measures can often be sought within days or weeks, while recognition proceedings typically take several months.
• Asset reach. Swiss bank accounts, real estate, corporate shares, movables and claims against third parties can all be attached following recognition.
• Sanctions overlay. For Russian-linked matters, State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) sanctions and blocked-asset rules must be checked before any recovery step.
• Arbitral awards are usually easier. Where the underlying dispute produced an award rather than a judgment, enforcement in Switzerland is generally more predictable.

Callout, when to call Swiss counsel: immediately, if assets are at risk of dissipation. The single most common cause of failed recovery is delay in securing a freeze before the debtor moves value out of Switzerland.

1. Legal framework for recognition and enforcement in Switzerland

Switzerland does not treat all foreign decisions the same way. The starting point for enforcing foreign judgments Switzerland is to identify whether the creditor holds a foreign court judgment or a foreign arbitral award, and whether any treaty applies. For Russian and Chinese matters, no general enforcement treaty applies, so the domestic regime controls. Understanding that regime, and the limited role of international instruments, is the foundation for every strategic decision that follows.

National law: PILA and the Swiss Civil Procedure Code

The Federal Act on Private International Law (PILA) governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in Switzerland where no treaty applies. PILA sets out the core recognition criteria (see notably Articles 25 to 27 and 166 ff. PILA): the foreign court must have had jurisdiction from the Swiss perspective (so-called indirect jurisdiction), the decision must be final and enforceable in the state of origin, and recognition must not conflict with Swiss public policy. The Swiss Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and, for monetary claims, the Federal Act on Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy (DEBA) then supply the procedural machinery, how a creditor files, how the debtor is heard, and how provisional and enforcement measures are obtained.

Because enforcement is administered largely through cantonal courts and cantonal debt-enforcement offices, some procedural steps vary by canton, which is why local instruction in the relevant canton (Geneva, Zurich, Zug and others) is essential.

International instruments and treaties

Switzerland is a party to the Lugano Convention, which provides a streamlined regime for recognising and enforcing judgments from EU and EFTA member states. Neither Russia nor China is a party to the Lugano Convention, so this route is simply unavailable for Russian or Chinese judgments. The practical consequence is significant: creditors cannot invoke treaty reciprocity and must instead satisfy the PILA recognition test in full. The one meaningful international instrument that does help, but only for arbitral awards, not court judgments, is the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, to which Switzerland is a long-standing party. Where a dispute was resolved by arbitration, the enforcement analysis changes entirely.

Swiss case law and public policy

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgericht / Tribunal fédéral) has developed a consistent and comparatively narrow approach to public policy in the recognition context. Swiss courts do not review the merits of the foreign decision; they will not refuse recognition simply because a Swiss court would have decided differently. Refusal on public-policy grounds is reserved for cases where recognition would produce a result intolerably at odds with fundamental Swiss legal values, for example, a decision procured by fraud, or one that violated basic procedural fairness such as the right to be heard. This restraint is generally creditor-friendly, but it does not lower the bar on jurisdiction, service and finality, which remain the practical battlegrounds in enforcing foreign judgments Switzerland.

2. Routes to enforce: court judgments vs arbitral awards

Before drafting any application, counsel must confirm which instrument the creditor holds. The two routes diverge in speed, documentation and available defences, and choosing the correct one at the outset avoids costly procedural missteps.

Recognition of foreign court judgments, ordinary procedure

To recognise a Russian or Chinese court judgment under PILA, the creditor must demonstrate that: the judgment is final and enforceable in its country of origin; the rendering court had jurisdiction from the Swiss standpoint; the defendant was properly served and afforded a fair hearing; recognition does not offend Swiss public policy; and the decision is not irreconcilable with a Swiss judgment or an earlier foreign judgment entitled to recognition, and there is no earlier pending proceeding in Switzerland. In practice, the creditor files an application before the competent cantonal authority, accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment, proof of finality, proof of service, and certified translations into the official language of the canton (French, German or Italian).

Recognition may be sought as a standalone declaration or incidentally within enforcement proceedings.

Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the New York Convention route

Where the creditor holds an arbitral award rather than a court judgment, enforcement in Switzerland proceeds under the New York Convention. This route is generally more predictable because the grounds for refusal are limited and exhaustively listed in the Convention: incapacity or invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice, an award exceeding the scope of the submission, irregular tribunal composition, an award not yet binding or set aside at the seat, non-arbitrability, and conflict with public policy. The creditor must produce the authenticated award and the arbitration agreement, together with certified translations.

Because Russia and China are themselves parties to the New York Convention, an award rendered against a Russian or Chinese debtor is frequently the strongest enforcement instrument a creditor can hold in Switzerland.

3. Step-by-step: enforcing a Russian judgment in Switzerland

Can a Russian judgment be enforced in Switzerland? Yes, but only after the PILA recognition test is satisfied, and success depends heavily on jurisdictional and practical factors, including the sanctions status of the debtor. The following chronological checklist reflects how experienced counsel approach enforcing foreign judgments Switzerland when the underlying decision is Russian:

1. Initial legal assessment. Confirm the judgment is final (res judicata) and enforceable in Russia, and analyse whether the Russian court’s jurisdiction will be accepted from the Swiss perspective under PILA.
2. Sanctions screening. Before any recovery step, screen the debtor and its structures against SECO sanctions lists. If assets are blocked, recovery may be suspended or require authorisation; proceeding without this check risks compliance breaches.
3. Document assembly. Obtain a certified copy of the judgment, proof of finality, and proof of proper service on the defendant. Arrange apostille or legalisation where required and certified translations into the cantonal language.
4. Asset tracing. Identify the location of Swiss assets, bank accounts, real estate, shares and holdings in Swiss vehicles, before the debtor is alerted.
5. Provisional measures. Where dissipation is a risk, apply for a conservatory freeze or an attachment (séquestre / Arrest) to secure assets pending recognition.
6. Initiate recognition. File the recognition application before the competent cantonal court, standalone or incidental to enforcement.
7. Commence enforcement. Once recognised, pursue attachment and execution through the debt-enforcement channels against identified assets.

Common traps. The absence of treaty reciprocity means every recognition requirement must be independently proven. Creditors should also be alert to the interaction between Russian domestic enforcement titles and the Swiss recognition process, a Russian enforcement order is not self-executing in Switzerland. Finally, banking confidentiality and know-your-customer procedures can slow disclosure, so early, well-drafted disclosure requests are critical. The sanctions overlay is the defining feature of Russian matters and must be revisited at every stage.

4. Step-by-step: enforcing a Chinese judgment in Switzerland

How do you enforce a Chinese civil judgment in Switzerland? Through the same PILA recognition route, because there is no general treaty reciprocity between Switzerland and China for court judgments. The New York Convention route is available only where the creditor holds a Chinese arbitral award rather than a civil judgment. The checklist mirrors the Russian sequence but carries China-specific considerations:

1. Confirm enforceability in China. Establish that the civil judgment is final and enforceable within the Chinese court system, and assemble evidence that the rendering court had jurisdiction acceptable under PILA.
2. Service and procedural evidence. Service abroad is a frequent point of challenge. Gather robust documentary proof that the defendant was properly served and heard, because improper service is a leading ground for refusal.
3. Certified translations and legalisation. Obtain certified translations into the cantonal language and arrange any required legalisation of the judgment and supporting documents.
4. Asset tracing in Switzerland. Map the Chinese debtor’s Swiss footprint, accounts, real estate, and interests in Swiss holding or trading vehicles, before initiating proceedings.
5. Provisional measures. Where assets may be moved, seek conservatory freezing orders or attachment to preserve value pending recognition.
6. Recognition and enforcement. File the recognition application and, once granted, proceed to attachment and execution.

Callout, Russia vs China. The core procedural route is the same, but the risk profile differs. Russian matters are dominated by sanctions and blocked-asset complexity; Chinese matters more often turn on proving jurisdiction and proper service abroad. In both cases, an arbitral award, enforceable under the New York Convention, is a materially stronger instrument than a court judgment, and counsel should always confirm whether an award exists before defaulting to the judgment-recognition route.

5. What Swiss assets can be targeted and how

What assets in Switzerland can creditors attach to satisfy a foreign judgment? A broad range: bank accounts, real estate, corporate shares, movable property and claims against third parties. The mechanics and evidentiary demands vary by asset class, and identifying the right target early is central to any successful asset recovery in Switzerland.

Swiss bank accounts and banking confidentiality

Bank accounts are frequently the primary target. Creditors can seek an attachment order to freeze accounts, and freezes can often be obtained rapidly where the statutory requirements are met. Swiss banking confidentiality does not shield assets from a valid attachment: once a court order is in place, banks are obliged to respect the freeze, and disclosure obligations in the enforcement process can compel the production of account information relevant to enforcement. The practical challenge is timing, creditors usually need to identify the bank and, ideally, the account before applying, which places a premium on pre-action asset tracing.

Real estate, corporate shares, movable property, trusts and foundations

Swiss real estate is registered and therefore traceable through the land registry, making it a comparatively straightforward attachment target once ownership is established. Shares in Swiss companies, movable property and negotiable instruments can also be attached, subject to documentary proof of the debtor’s ownership. Assets held through trusts, foundations or intermediary corporate vehicles present greater difficulty: the corporate veil and the separation of legal ownership can shield value unless the creditor can demonstrate, with evidence, that the structure is effectively controlled by or holds assets beneficially owned by the debtor. Piercing such structures typically requires a documentary case built during the tracing phase.

Publicly listed instruments and nominee holdings

Listed securities and holdings registered in the name of nominees or custodians can be reached, but the creditor must first establish the beneficial ownership behind the nominee arrangement. This is an evidence-driven exercise: correspondence, transfer records, corporate filings and disclosure obtained through the enforcement process are the tools that convert a suspected nominee holding into an attachable asset.

6. Provisional measures, freezing orders and evidence preservation

Provisional measures are the creditor’s most powerful early tool, and speed is decisive. Under the Swiss Civil Procedure Code, a creditor can seek conservatory (freezing) measures and urgent injunctions to preserve assets and evidence pending recognition and enforcement. For monetary claims, attachment (séquestre / Arrest) under the Federal Act on Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy allows a creditor to freeze a debtor’s assets in Switzerland before or alongside enforcement proceedings, subject to demonstrating the required statutory grounds. Such measures can frequently be obtained within days or weeks, and applications are often decided without prior notice to the debtor to prevent value from being moved.

Courts typically require the applicant to show a prima facie claim and a genuine risk to enforcement, and may impose security to protect the debtor against wrongful freezing. Because these measures are the difference between recovery and an empty judgment, they should be prepared in parallel with, not after, the recognition strategy.

7. Common grounds for refusal and risk mitigation

What are the typical grounds for refusal of recognition or enforcement in Swiss courts? The recurring grounds, and the corresponding mitigation steps, are:

• Lack of indirect jurisdiction. The Swiss court finds the foreign court lacked jurisdiction from the Swiss perspective. Mitigation: analyse the jurisdictional basis early and assemble evidence supporting it before filing.
• Irreconcilability. The foreign decision conflicts with a Swiss judgment or an earlier recognisable foreign judgment. Mitigation: check for competing proceedings and prior decisions during the assessment phase.
• Public policy (ordre public). Recognition would offend fundamental Swiss legal values. Mitigation: address procedural fairness and any fraud allegations head-on in the application.
• Improper service. The defendant was not properly served or heard. Mitigation: obtain and preserve robust proof of service, particularly for service effected abroad.
• Fraud or procedural defect. The judgment was procured improperly. Mitigation: document the integrity of the foreign proceedings.
• Sanctions and compliance conflicts. For Russian matters especially, recovery may collide with SECO sanctions or blocked-asset rules. Mitigation: screen early and, where necessary, seek the appropriate authorisation before acting.

8. Practical enforcement playbook and timeline

The following chronological playbook consolidates the strategy for enforcing foreign judgments Switzerland into an actionable sequence. Timelines are indicative and depend on the canton, the asset complexity and whether the debtor appeals:

1. Pre-action tracing (weeks 0–4). Locate Swiss assets and screen for sanctions exposure.
2. Document and translation preparation (weeks 2–6). Certify the judgment or award, prove finality and service, and translate into the cantonal language.
3. Provisional measures (days to weeks). Apply for a freeze or attachment where dissipation is a risk, often the first filed step.
4. Recognition filing (from week 4). Lodge the recognition application, standalone or incidental to enforcement.
5. Recognition decision (typically several months). Respond to any defences on jurisdiction, service or public policy.
6. Enforcement and execution. Pursue attachment and realisation of assets through the debt-enforcement channels.
7. Appeals. Anticipate that an adverse decision may be appealed, extending the timeline.

9. Comparison table, enforcing Russian vs Chinese judgments in Switzerland

The table below summarises the practical differences between the two routes. Both rely on the same PILA recognition regime, but the risk profile, evidence burden and sanctions exposure diverge in ways that should shape strategy from day one.

10. Costs, security and risk allocation

Enforcement in Switzerland carries court costs, counsel fees, and, where provisional measures are sought, potential security requirements. Courts may order an applicant seeking a freeze to post security to compensate the debtor if the measure later proves unjustified. Cost recovery is possible: the successful party may recover a portion of its costs from the losing party, though recovery rarely covers the full commercial cost of complex, multi-jurisdictional enforcement. All figures depend on the canton, the value at stake and the complexity of the assets, and creditors should treat any estimate as indicative and subject to confirmation with local counsel.

Professional conduct and fee guidance is set by the Swiss Bar Association and the relevant cantonal bar, in line with the Federal Act on the Free Movement of Lawyers.

11. Practical checklist for counsel and in-house teams

Before filing, assemble the following. A well-prepared bundle is the single biggest accelerator of enforcing foreign judgments Switzerland:

• Certified copy of the foreign judgment or arbitral award.
• Proof of finality and enforceability in the country of origin.
• Documentary proof of proper service on the defendant.
• Certified translations into the cantonal language (French, German or Italian).
• Apostille or legalisation where required.
• A detailed list of identified Swiss assets and their locations.
• Evidence supporting the freezing or attachment application, including the risk of dissipation.
• Sanctions screening results for Russian-linked matters (SECO).
• Draft disclosure requests for banks and custodians.

13. Next steps and when to instruct Swiss counsel

Enforcing foreign judgments Switzerland rewards speed and precision. The creditors who recover are those who trace assets before the debtor reacts, secure a freeze at the earliest opportunity, and file a recognition application supported by a complete evidentiary bundle. For Russian matters, sanctions clearance must run alongside every step; for Chinese matters, the integrity of the service and jurisdiction record is decisive. If Swiss assets are at risk, instruct local counsel immediately for an initial enforcement assessment, the earliest interventions consistently produce the strongest recoveries, and a short delay can be the difference between a successful attachment and an empty judgment.

Sources

1. Federal Act on Private International Law (PILA), Fedlex
2. Swiss Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Fedlex
3. Federal Act on Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy (DEBA), Fedlex
4. New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, UNCITRAL
5. Swiss Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgericht / Tribunal fédéral)
6. Swiss Bar Association (SAV/FSA)
7. State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), Swiss sanctions guidance