Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Switzerland: Between Cosmopolitanism and Parochialism in Civil Litigation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Civil Litigation in a Globalising World

  • 1236 Accesses

Abstract

On 1 January 2011, the new Swiss Code of Civil Procedure entered into force, replacing the twenty-six cantonal codes of civil procedure. One of the main incentives for unifying civil procedure was the perception that divergent rules were inhibiting the efficient administration of justice. Despite Switzerland’s close economic and cultural ties with other countries the focus was, however, almost exclusively on finding compromises between different cantonal models. Meanwhile, comparatively little attention was directed to international developments in the field of civil procedure. Nevertheless, international models have had an important impact on Swiss civil procedure. One of the most influential has been the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. It not only created uniform rules applicable in all contracting States regarding jurisdiction and enforcement in cases with an international element but also influenced legislation and case law in purely domestic cases. The Swiss legislature and Swiss case law often voluntarily follow European developments even in cases where they are contrary to Switzerland’s original political intentions. The development of the European area of freedom, security and justice has, however, advanced far beyond the matters originally contained in the Brussels Convention and now in the Brussels I Regulation. Switzerland has not been partaking in this development. Even as regards jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, Switzerland risks losing contact with the impending reforms on the EU level. As opposed to the situation in several other areas of law, ‘autonomous implementation’ (autonomer Nachvollzug), i.e. the enactment of national provisions mirroring EU law, is not considered, in general, to be an option in the field of civil procedure.

Professor of Civil Procedure, Enforcement and Insolvency Law, Private Law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    SR 272.

  2. 2.

    Meanwhile, the Federal Act on Federal Civil Procedure (Bundesgesetz über den Bundeszivilprozess, SR 273) which applies in cases where the Bundesgericht (Federal Court), i.e. the Swiss supreme court, decides at first instance, was not abrogated. This Act’s scope of application, however, has been narrowed down very much in recent reforms.

  3. 3.

    See Domej 2006, 241 with further references.

  4. 4.

    Botschaft 2006, 7228 et seq.

  5. 5.

    Expertenkommission 2003a.

  6. 6.

    Expertenkommission 2003b, 5 et seq. All translations are my own.

  7. 7.

    Expertenkommission 2003b, 10.

  8. 8.

    Expertenkommission 2003b, 15.

  9. 9.

    See, in this context, Oberhammer 2004a, 217 et seq.

  10. 10.

    Expertenkommission 2003b, 15.

  11. 11.

    See 12.3.2 below.

  12. 12.

    For a more balanced discussion of instruments of collective redress, see, e.g. Romy 1997; Gordon-Vrba 2007.

  13. 13.

    See Domej 2006, 241 et seq.

  14. 14.

    Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung—Entwurf 2006.

  15. 15.

    The results are compiled in Bundesamt für Justiz 2004.

  16. 16.

    See, especially, the statement by the University of Zurich, Bundesamt für Justiz 2004, 76; Oberhammer 2004b, 1038 et seq.

  17. 17.

    Botschaft 2006, 7248 et seq.

  18. 18.

    In particular, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights is also taken into account by the Swiss Federal Court when interpreting the domestic rules on the right to a fair trial, especially Art. 29 of the Swiss Federal Constitution, see BGE 133 I 100, 103. On Art. 6 para 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights as a driving force of procedural harmonisation, see also the contribution by Andrews (Chap. 2) in the present Vol.

  19. 19.

    Amtliche Sammlung 2000, 2355.

  20. 20.

    Botschaft 1998, 2834 et seq.

  21. 21.

    The Gerichtsstandsgesetz was abrogated by the Zivilprozessordnung, see Annex 1 to the Zivilprozessordnung, point I. The rules on jurisdiction in domestic cases are now contained in Arts. 9 et seq Zivilprozessordnung, while jurisdiction in international cases outside the scope of application of bi- or multilateral treaties is still subject to the provisions of the Bundesgesetz über das Internationale Privatrecht (Act on Private International Law) SR 291.

  22. 22.

    See Domej 2008b, marginal No. 39; Walther 2002, 128 et seq; Walter 2007, 268 et seq.

  23. 23.

    BGE 128 III 284, 287 et seq. See, however, also BGE 123 III 414, 430; 131 III 319, 325 et seq where the Bundesgericht decided that in such cases, the prerequisites of national law for a Feststellungsinteresse (legal interest to seek a declaratory judgment) have to be fulfilled, and that the mere interest to secure a favourable forum does not suffice in this regard. According to a recent judgment of the Bundesgericht, this also applies to cases within the scope of application of the Lugano Convention (BGE 136 III 523).

  24. 24.

    See BGE 129 III 80, 84 et seq; 134 III 27, 31 et seq; 134 III 80, 84.

  25. 25.

    See, e.g. BGE 129 III 80, 87.

  26. 26.

    See, in this context, Botschaft 1990, 267.

  27. 27.

    According to the prevailing opinion, the reservation ceased to have effect also with regard to judgments given before 2000; see BGE 126 III 540; Knoepfler 1996, 537 et seq; Kren Kostkiewicz 1999, 243 et seq; Domej 2008a, marginal No. 3 et seq; contra: Markus 1999, 63 et seq.

  28. 28.

    See Botschaft 1998, 2858 et seq.

  29. 29.

    See Botschaft 2009, 1788.

  30. 30.

    Note, however, that Art. 31 Zivilprozessordnung differs from Art. 5 No. 1 Lugano Convention in that it confers jurisdiction on the court for the place of performance of the characteristic obligation irrespective of the type of contract. This solution had also been proposed (unsuccessfully) by the Swiss delegation in the negotiations on the reform of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions, see Botschaft 2009, 1789.

  31. 31.

    See 12.2.

  32. 32.

    See, e.g. Botschaft 1998, 2835; Botschaft 2006, 7268; Botschaft 2009, 1821.

  33. 33.

    Bundesbeschluss über die Genehmigung und die Umsetzung des Übereinkommens über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit und die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen (Federal Enactment on the Approval and Implementation of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters), Amtliche Sammlung 2010, 5601.

  34. 34.

    BGE 137 III 87; Staehelin 2005, 207; Visinoni-Meyer 2005, 429 et seq; Naegeli 2008, marginal No. 49 with further references.

  35. 35.

    Act on Debt Enforcement and Insolvency, SR 281.1.

  36. 36.

    Oberhammer 2005, 248 et seq; Naegeli 2008, marginal No. 32 with further references.

  37. 37.

    Even the group of experts saw a ‘real need’ for this, see Expertenkommission 2003b, 15.

  38. 38.

    See, e.g. Kofmel Ehrenzeller 2010, marginal No. 1.

  39. 39.

    Oberhammer 2011b, marginal No. 24.

  40. 40.

    Staehelin 2008, marginal No. 5.

  41. 41.

    Note also, in this context, that opinions differed widely in Swiss case law and literature as to which measures under domestic law were best suited as provisional measures under Art. 39 para 2 Lugano Convention 1988 with regard to money judgments (see, e.g. Staehelin 2008, marginal Nos. 16 et seq with further references). This controversy is now obsolete, as the federal legislature has meanwhile decided in favour of the Arrest (see Botschaft 2009, 1821).

  42. 42.

    See Botschaft 2009, 1821.

  43. 43.

    European Commission 2010.

  44. 44.

    See also Domej 2010, 409 et seq.

  45. 45.

    In this context, see, e.g. Bieri 2007, 708 et seq; Piaget 2006, 727 et seq.

  46. 46.

    See, in this context, BGE 134 III 366 = Praxis 97 (2008) Nr. 144; 135 III 40; 135 III 666; Oberhammer 2009, 431 et seq; Oberhammer 2011a, 327 et seq; Jaques 2006, 19 et seq; Lorandi 2008, 560 et seq; Neuroni Naef and Naef 2008, 1396 et seq; Gehri and Kostkiewicz 2009, 204 et seq.

  47. 47.

    International Court of Justice Case of Belgium v Switzerland, Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters, General List No. 145. Belgium discontinued the proceedings in March 2011; see http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=1&code=besu&case=145 (last consulted 22 August 2011).

  48. 48.

    BGE 135 III 127; see also BGE 135 III 386.

References

  • Bieri L (2007) L’application du droit suisse reprenant de manière autonome des directives communautaires, Aktuelle Juristische Praxis 6:708–716

    Google Scholar 

  • Botschaft (1990) Botschaft betreffend das Lugano-Übereinkommen über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit und die Vollstreckung gerichtlicher Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen. Bundesblatt II, 265

    Google Scholar 

  • Botschaft (1998) Botschaft zum Bundesgesetz über den Gerichtsstand in Zivilsachen. Bundesblatt, 2829

    Google Scholar 

  • Botschaft (2006) Botschaft zur Schweizerischen Zivilprozessordnung. Bundesblatt, 7221

    Google Scholar 

  • Botschaft (2009) Botschaft zum Bundesbeschluss über die Genehmigung und die Umsetzung des revidierten Übereinkommens von Lugano über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit, die Anerkennung und die Vollstreckung gerichtlicher Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen. Bundesblatt, 1777

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesamt für Justiz (2004) Vorentwurf für ein Bundesgesetz über die Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO)—Zusammenstellung der Vernehmlassungen. http://www.ejpd.admin.ch/content/dam/data/staat_buerger/gesetzgebung/zivilprozessrecht/ve-ber.pdf (Accessed 22 Aug 2011)

  • Domej T (2006) Die künftige schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung—Struktur und Charakteristika des Verfahrens. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International 11:239–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Domej T (2008a) Commentary on Article Ia, Protocol 1 of the Lugano Convention 1988. In: Dasser F, Oberhammer P (eds) Kommentar zum Lugano-Übereinkommen. Stämpfli, Berne, pp 833–837

    Google Scholar 

  • Domej T (2008b) Commentary on the preamble of protocol 2 of the Lugano convention 1988. In: Dasser F, Oberhammer P (eds) Kommentar zum Lugano-Übereinkommen. Stämpfli, Berne, pp 873–897

    Google Scholar 

  • Domej T (2010) Das EU-Zivilprozessrecht und die Schweiz: parallel oder aneinander vorbei? In: Busch et al (eds) Europäische Methodik. Jahrbuch Junger Zivilrechtswissenschaftler 2009, Boorberg, Stuttgart, pp 405–432

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2010) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), COM (2010) 748 final

    Google Scholar 

  • Expertenkommission (2003a) Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung: Vorentwurf der Expertenkommission. http://www.bj.admin.ch/content/dam/data/staat_buerger/gesetzgebung/zivilprozessrecht/entw-zpo-d.pdf. (Accessed 22 Aug 2011)

  • Expertenkommission (2003b) Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung: Bericht zum Vorentwurf. http://www.ejpd.admin.ch/content/dam/data/staat_buerger/gesetzgebung/zivilprozessrecht/vn-ber-d.pdf. (Accessed 22 Aug 2011)

  • Gehri M, Kostkiewicz G (2009) Anerkennung ausländischer Insolvenzentscheide in der Schweiz—ein neuer réduit national? Schweizerische Zeitschrift für internationales und europäisches Recht 2:193–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon-Vrba L (2007) Vielparteienprozesse. Schulthess, Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaques C (2006) La reconnaissance et les effets en Suisse d’une faillite ouverte à l’étranger, Commissione ticinese per la formazione permanente dei giuristi, Lugano

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoepfler F (1996) La Convention de Lugano au soir du 31 décembre 1999. In: Zen-Ruffinen P et al (eds) De la constitution. Études en l’honneur de Jean-François Aubert. Helbing Lichtenhahn, Basle, pp 531–541

    Google Scholar 

  • Kofmel Ehrenzeller S (2010) Commentary on Article 347 Zivilprozessordnung. In: Oberhammer P (ed) Kurzkommentar Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung. Helbing Lichtenhahn, Basle, pp 1241–1246

    Google Scholar 

  • Kren Kostkiewicz J (1999) Vorbehalt von Art. 1a des Protokolls Nr. 1 zum Lugano-Übereinkommen—quo vadis? Schweizerische Juristen-Zeitung 95:237–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorandi F (2008) Handlungsspielraum ausländischer Insolvenzmassen in der Schweiz. Aktuelle Juristische Praxis 5:560–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus A (1999) Der schweizerische Vorbehalt nach Protokoll Nr. 1 Lugano-Übereinkommen: Vollstreckungsaufschub oder Vollstreckungshindernis? 135 Zeitschrift des Bernischen Juristenvereins, pp 57–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Naegeli G (2008) Commentary on Article 50 Lugano Convention 1988. In: Dasser F, Oberhammer P (eds) Kommentar zum Lugano-Übereinkommen. Stämpfli, Berne, pp 705–727

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuroni Naef E, Naef F (2008) Droit suisse de la faillite internationale: la faillite d’un systeme? Aktuelle Juristische Praxis 11:1396–1412

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2004a) Speeding up civil litigation in Austria: past and present instruments. In: Van Rhee CH (ed) The law’s delay. Essays on undue delay in civil litigation. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 217–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2004b) Zivilprozessgesetzgebung: content follows method. In: Honsell H et al (eds) Privatrecht und Methode, Festschrift für Ernst A. Kramer. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel, pp 1025–1050

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2005) Die vollstreckbare öffentliche Urkunde im Vorentwurf einer eidgenössischen ZPO. In: Riemer et al (ed) Schweizerisches und internationales Zwangsvollstreckungsrecht. Festschrift für Karl Spühler. Schulthess, Zurich, pp 247–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2009) Remarks on Bundesgericht 23.9.2008, 5A_222/2008=BGE 135 III 40, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess- und Zwangsvollstreckungsrecht 2008/2009, pp 430–438

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2011a) Jäger des verlorenen Schatzes: Deutsche Insolvenzverwalter in der Schweiz. In: Kern BR, Lilie H (eds) Jurisprudenz zwischen Medizin und Kultur. Festschrift für Gerfried Fischer. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, pp 327–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2011b) Commentary on Article 57 Brussels I regulation. In: Stein, Jonas, Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget E (2006) L’influence de la jurisprudence communautaire sur l’interprétation des lois suisses relatives à la proprieté intellectuelle: argument contraignant ou simple aide à l’interprétation? Zeitschrift für Immaterialgüter-, Informations- und Wettbewerbsrecht, pp 727–739

    Google Scholar 

  • Romy I (1997) Litiges de masse: des class actions aux solutions suisses dans les cas des pollutions et les toxiques. Editions Universitaires, Fribourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung—Entwurf (2006) Bundesblatt 7413

    Google Scholar 

  • Staehelin D (2005) Die vollstreckbare öffentliche Urkunde—eine Ausländerin vor der Einbürgerung. In: Jametti, Greiner et al (eds) Rechtssetzung und Rechtsdurchsetzung. Festschrift für Franz Kellerhals. Stämpfli, Berne, pp 205–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Staehelin D (2008) Commentary on article 39 Lugano Convention 1988. In: Dasser F, Oberhammer P (eds) Kommentar zum Lugano-Übereinkommen. Stämpfli, Berne, pp 644–657

    Google Scholar 

  • Visinoni-Meyer C (2005) Die Vollstreckung einer öffentlichen Urkunde gemäss Art. 50 LugÜ in der Schweiz: Definitiver oder provisorischer Rechtsöffnungstitel? In: Riemer et al (ed) Schweizerisches und internationales Zwangsvollstreckungsrecht. Festschrift für Karl Spühler. Schulthess, Zurich, pp 419–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter HP (2007) Das rechtsvergleichende Element—Zur Auslegung vereinheitlichten, harmonisierten und rezipierten Rechts, 126 Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht, vol I, pp 259–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Walther F (2002) Die Auslegung des schweizerischen Zivilprozessrechts, insbesondere des Bundesgesetzes über den Gerichtsstand in Zivilsachen. Stämpfli, Bern

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Tanja Domej

Authors
  1. Tanja Domej
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tanja Domej .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, Rotterdam, 3062 PA, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands

    X.E. Kramer

  2. , Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Bouillonstraat 1-3, Maastricht, 6211 LH, Netherlands

    C.H. Rhee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors/editors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Domej, T. (2012). Switzerland: Between Cosmopolitanism and Parochialism in Civil Litigation. In: Kramer, X., Rhee, C. (eds) Civil Litigation in a Globalising World. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-817-0_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation