English Proceedings and Cross‑border Evidence in Switzerland, What Litigants Must Know in 2026

Two reforms that took effect within months of each other have fundamentally changed how international claimants approach commercial litigation in Switzerland. On 1 January 2026, Switzerland’s amended declaration under the Hague Evidence Convention came into force, streamlining the procedure for cross‑border letters of request and clarifying how Swiss courts process incoming and outgoing evidence demands. Then, in May 2026, the Canton of Bern became the first Swiss jurisdiction to permit English proceedings in its Commercial Court, with Zurich scheduled to follow in 2027. Taken together, these changes position Switzerland as a materially more attractive forum for international commercial disputes, particularly for anglophone parties that previously defaulted to London, Singapore or arbitration.

This guide walks general counsel, in‑house teams and litigation funders through the practical mechanics: where and when to elect English proceedings in Switzerland, how to obtain cross‑border evidence under the 2026 framework, and how to enforce the resulting judgment or award.

Five immediate decisions for general counsel:

• Assess whether your dispute qualifies for English proceedings in Bern, and whether Zurich’s 2027 rollout affects forum‑selection clauses drafted today.
• Review existing jurisdiction and arbitration clauses in key contracts for compatibility with Swiss state‑court proceedings in English.
• Map your evidence needs against the amended Hague framework, particularly for documents or witnesses located in non‑EU jurisdictions.
• Consider interim relief and asset‑preservation measures available from Swiss courts before or in parallel with English‑language proceedings.
• Plan the enforcement route early: Lugano Convention, New York Convention or bilateral treaty recognition.

When and Where: English Proceedings in Swiss State Courts (Eligibility and Canton Rollout)

Yes, from May 2026, parties can bring commercial proceedings entirely in English before Swiss state courts. The Canton of Bern is the first to operationalise this reform, and industry observers expect several other cantons to follow within the next two years.

Legal Basis: CPC Amendments and Cantonal Ordinances

The legal foundation for English proceedings in Switzerland sits at two levels. At federal level, revisions to the Swiss Civil Procedure Code (CPC) introduced provisions that permit cantons to authorise proceedings in English in their commercial courts, provided the dispute has an international element and all parties consent to the language choice. This federal enabling provision does not mandate English proceedings, it delegates authority to individual cantons to adopt implementing ordinances.

At cantonal level, each jurisdiction must pass its own ordinance specifying the conditions under which English may be used, the type of court chamber that will hear such cases, minimum dispute‑value thresholds (if any), and any residual translation requirements for judgments or procedural orders. The Canton of Bern’s ordinance, which became operational in May 2026, established a dedicated international commercial chamber within the Bern Commercial Court (Handelsgericht) to hear eligible disputes in English.

Where Now: Bern (May 2026), Zurich (Scheduled 2027) and Other Cantons

Consent vs Court‑Directed English Proceedings, Practical Considerations

Under the current framework, Swiss civil procedure English requires the agreement of all parties. A court cannot unilaterally order proceedings in English if one party objects. In practice, this means that the choice of language should be addressed either in the underlying contract’s dispute‑resolution clause or at the earliest case‑management stage. Where a respondent refuses English, the court will default to the official language of the canton (German in Bern, for example). Early engagement with counterparties on the language question, ideally before proceedings are filed, is therefore essential to avoid procedural delay.

Translation Requirements and Evidentiary Practice

Even where proceedings are conducted in English, certain categories of documents may still require certified translation. Court orders that must be entered in cantonal registers, decisions subject to appeal before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (which operates in German, French and Italian), and official certificates typically need to be rendered in an official Swiss language. However, evidentiary documents, contracts, correspondence, expert reports, may generally be filed in English without translation, provided the court and all parties can work in the language. This significantly reduces the cost and time burden compared to traditional proceedings where every exhibit required a sworn translation.

Choosing the Forum, Tactical Considerations for International Commercial Disputes

The availability of English proceedings in Switzerland creates a genuine alternative to international arbitration for certain categories of international commercial disputes. The decision, however, is not straightforward and depends on the specific needs of the claim.

English Proceedings vs Arbitration: Key Factors

Suitability Checklist by Claim Type

• M&A disputes (warranty claims, earn‑outs, indemnities). Strong fit for Swiss state courts if the target or holding company is Swiss‑domiciled, enforcement is domestic, and interim relief is efficient.
• Financial services and banking disputes. Swiss courts have deep expertise; asset recovery in Switzerland benefits from proximity to banking documentation and the ability to obtain preservation orders.
• IP and technology disputes. Consider whether confidentiality is critical, if so, arbitration may be preferable. Patent validity questions may require state‑court jurisdiction in any event.
• Fraud and asset‑tracing claims. Swiss state courts offer powerful interim measures (attachment under the DEBA) and direct access to banking information through court‑ordered disclosure, a significant advantage over arbitration.
• Construction and infrastructure disputes. Complex multi‑party disputes may benefit from the court’s case‑management powers and lower procedural costs.

Cross‑Border Evidence After the 2026 Hague Changes, What Litigants Must Know

The amended Hague evidence declaration, effective 1 January 2026, adjusts how Switzerland processes outgoing and incoming letters of request for the taking of evidence abroad. For practitioners, this is the most operationally significant reform of the year.

The Amended Hague Evidence Convention Declaration: Practical Effects

Switzerland’s updated declaration under the Hague Evidence Convention modifies the scope of permissible evidence requests and clarifies the procedures for judicial cooperation with signatory states. The practical effect is that Swiss courts now have a clearer framework for issuing letters of request to foreign courts, and foreign courts have streamlined guidance for processing requests directed to Switzerland. The amendment also addresses the treatment of electronic evidence and document‑production requests, reflecting the reality that most commercial documentation now exists in digital form.

For litigants, the key change is procedural: the amended declaration reduces certain formalities that previously delayed processing (particularly for evidence located in EU member states and other Hague signatories) and provides a more predictable framework for requests directed to jurisdictions that have also updated their own declarations.

Using Letters of Request vs Direct Evidence‑Gathering

Under the Hague Evidence Convention, cross‑border evidence in Switzerland is obtained primarily through letters of request (also called letters rogatory). A Swiss court issues a formal request to the competent authority in the state where the evidence is located, asking that authority to take the evidence on behalf of the Swiss proceedings. The amended 2026 framework does not eliminate this procedure but makes it more efficient.

In certain jurisdictions, particularly within the Lugano/EU framework, direct evidence‑gathering by a Swiss‑appointed commissioner may also be available, subject to the consent of the foreign state. The choice between a letter of request and direct evidence‑gathering depends on the nature of the evidence, the cooperativeness of the requested state, and the urgency of the matter.

Six‑Step Checklist for Obtaining Cross‑Border Evidence

1. Identify the evidence and its location. Map all documents, witnesses and electronic data by jurisdiction before filing proceedings.
2. Check treaty coverage. Confirm whether the target state is a party to the Hague Evidence Convention and review its declarations and reservations.
3. Draft the letter of request. Follow the model form prescribed by the Convention; specify precisely the documents sought or questions for witnesses. Vague or overly broad requests are routinely rejected.
4. File through the Swiss central authority. Submit the letter of request through the Swiss Federal Office of Justice (RHF), which transmits it to the foreign central authority.
5. Monitor processing and follow up. Processing times vary widely, plan for 8–12 weeks as a baseline for most European jurisdictions, and longer for requests to China, Brazil or Gulf states.
6. Assess admissibility on return. Evidence obtained through Hague channels is generally admissible in Swiss proceedings, but the court retains discretion over its weight and the manner in which it was taken.

Taking Evidence Abroad and Swiss Tools: Letters Rogatory, Preservation Orders and Expert Evidence

Beyond the Hague framework, Swiss courts provide several domestic tools that litigants can deploy to secure evidence, both within Switzerland and to support evidence‑gathering efforts abroad.

Pre‑Action Preservation and Banking Information Requests

Swiss procedural law permits pre‑action preservation of evidence where there is a risk that evidence will be destroyed, altered or removed. A party can apply to the competent court for an order requiring a third party, including a bank, to preserve specified documents or data. This is particularly valuable in fraud and asset recovery cases where the defendant may attempt to dissipate assets or destroy records.

For taking evidence abroad through Swiss courts, practitioners should be aware of the following practical pitfalls:

• Banking secrecy. While Swiss banking secrecy has been significantly narrowed by international cooperation agreements, it remains relevant in domestic proceedings. Court orders for banking information must satisfy proportionality requirements.
• Data privacy. Cross‑border transfers of personal data must comply with the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP). Letters of request that seek broad categories of personal data may face objections under privacy grounds.
• Costs. Pre‑action evidence preservation requires the applicant to provide security for costs and potential damages if the application proves unfounded.

Practical Drafting Tips and Sample Timeline

A well‑drafted letter of request is the single most important factor in obtaining timely cross‑border evidence. Industry observers consistently note that requests fail or are delayed because they are drafted too broadly, omit required formalities, or fail to identify the precise evidence sought. The following timeline provides a realistic planning framework:

• Weeks 1–2: Internal evidence mapping and identification of target jurisdictions.
• Weeks 3–4: Draft and review of letter of request; obtain court approval for issuance.
• Weeks 5–6: Transmission through Swiss central authority (RHF) to foreign central authority.
• Weeks 7–14: Processing by foreign authority (highly variable; EU states typically 6–10 weeks; non‑EU states may take longer).
• Weeks 15–16: Receipt, translation (if necessary) and assessment of admissibility by Swiss court.

Enforcing Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards in Switzerland, Routes and Practical Steps

The ability to enforce a foreign judgment or arbitral award in Switzerland is often the decisive factor in choosing Switzerland as a forum, or in pursuing Swiss assets after obtaining a judgment elsewhere.

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments

To enforce a foreign judgment in Switzerland, the judgment creditor must apply to the competent Swiss court for a declaration of enforceability. The grounds on which recognition may be refused are limited and include: lack of jurisdiction of the foreign court under Swiss private international law, violation of Swiss public policy, failure to properly serve the defendant, or the existence of a conflicting Swiss judgment. Under the Lugano Convention (applicable to judgments from EU and EFTA states), recognition is largely automatic, and enforcement follows a streamlined procedure. For judgments from non‑Lugano states, bilateral treaties or the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA) govern the recognition process.

Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Under the New York Convention

Switzerland is a contracting state to the 1958 New York Convention, and Swiss courts apply a pro‑enforcement presumption. The grounds for refusing enforcement are narrowly construed and mirror the Convention’s exhaustive list: incapacity of a party, invalid arbitration agreement, lack of due process, excess of jurisdiction, or public‑policy violation. In practice, challenges to enforcement in Switzerland succeed rarely. The procedure is initiated by filing the original or certified copy of the award and the arbitration agreement with the competent cantonal court.

Asset Recovery Checklist: Enforcement‑Friendly Tactics

For creditors pursuing asset recovery in Switzerland, the following eight‑step workflow provides a structured approach:

1. Conduct pre‑litigation asset tracing to identify Swiss‑held assets (bank accounts, real property, corporate interests).
2. Obtain an attachment order (Arrest) under the Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (DEBA) to freeze identified assets.
3. File the enforcement application (declaration of enforceability) with the competent cantonal court.
4. Serve the debtor with the enforcement application and attachment order simultaneously where possible.
5. Respond to any objections or challenges within the statutory deadlines.
6. Obtain the declaration of enforceability and convert the attachment into a definitive seizure.
7. Pursue third‑party debt orders against banks or other entities holding the debtor’s assets.
8. Distribute recovered funds and close the enforcement proceedings.

Practical Checklist and Timeline for Litigating in English in Switzerland

The following twelve‑step checklist consolidates the key actions for a litigant planning English proceedings in Switzerland from pre‑litigation through to enforcement:

1. Venue assessment (Month 1). Confirm that your dispute qualifies for English proceedings in an eligible canton (currently Bern; Zurich from 2027).
2. Forum‑selection clause review. Check existing contractual jurisdiction and language provisions; amend if necessary for future transactions.
3. Counterparty consent. Secure the opposing party’s agreement to English‑language proceedings, ideally in writing before filing.
4. Evidence mapping (Months 1–2). Identify all documents, witnesses and electronic data by jurisdiction; flag items requiring Hague letters of request.
5. Interim relief assessment. Determine whether pre‑action preservation orders or attachment orders are needed; file on an urgent basis if asset dissipation is a risk.
6. Pleadings preparation (Months 2–3). Draft the statement of claim in English; confirm compliance with cantonal procedural requirements.
7. Language confirmation. File a joint declaration of language preference with the court at the case‑management conference.
8. Hague evidence requests (Months 3–6). Issue letters of request through the Swiss central authority for any evidence located abroad.
9. Translation of essential documents. Arrange certified translations of any documents that must be in an official Swiss language (court register entries, appeal documents).
10. Hearing logistics (Months 6–12). Coordinate witness schedules, expert testimony and interpreter arrangements (if any witnesses testify in a language other than English).
11. Judgment and appeal planning. Review the judgment in English; assess whether a Federal Supreme Court appeal is warranted (note: appeal briefs must be in an official Swiss language).
12. Enforcement execution. Initiate enforcement proceedings domestically or under the Lugano/New York Convention framework in the relevant jurisdiction.

Key Legislative and Court Rollout Dates

Conclusion

The 2026 reforms to English proceedings in Switzerland, combined with the amended Hague evidence framework, represent the most significant practical upgrade to Swiss commercial litigation in a generation. For general counsel and international claimants, the message is clear: Switzerland is now a viable English‑language litigation forum with powerful evidence‑gathering tools and robust enforcement routes. The key is early planning, from venue selection and language confirmation through evidence mapping and enforcement strategy. Practitioners who build these considerations into their dispute‑resolution clauses and pre‑litigation workflows today will be best positioned to take advantage of this evolving landscape as additional cantons adopt English proceedings over the coming years.

Sources

1. Swiss Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Fedlex (official translation)
2. Pestalozzi, Proceedings in English before Swiss state courts
3. Bär & Karrer, The use of English in Swiss civil proceedings
4. Hague Conference on Private International Law, Evidence Convention status table
5. Practical Law / Thomson Reuters, Service and procedural notes (Switzerland)
6. Eversheds Sutherland, Revision of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code
7. Swiss Federal Office of Justice (RHF), Guidelines for international judicial assistance in civil matters
8. Prager Dreifuss, Litigation and enforcement in Switzerland overview