A Swiss judgment is not enforceable as of right in France, but it does not need a full exequatur trial either. The Lugano Convention offers an intermediate route: a declaration of enforceability, obtained on application to the registry of the judicial court, without the debtor being heard. The debtor can only react afterwards, through a one-month appeal.
A judgment of the Geneva Court of First Instance, final since February, orders a businessman domiciled in Monaco to pay 2.4 million Swiss francs to his former business partner. The debtor owns nothing in Switzerland. He does, however, hold an apartment on Avenue Foch through a civil real estate company, shares in a French company, and, in all likelihood, an account at a Paris private bank. The creditor wants to know how long it will take to reach a seizure, and what can be done in the meantime.
Switzerland occupies a particular position among France’s judicial partners. It is not a member of the European Union, so the Brussels I bis Regulation and its abolition of exequatur do not apply. Nor is it an ordinary third state: the Lugano Convention of 30 October 2007, which binds the European Union, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, follows the architecture of the former Brussels I Regulation and maintains a procedure for declaring enforceability that is fast and non-adversarial. This page describes that procedure, the documents to gather, the debtor’s appeal, the protective measures available even before the declaration, particular Swiss titles, the matters Lugano does not cover, and the real timeframes.
1. Neither classic exequatur nor enforcement as of right: the Lugano route
Article 38 of the Lugano Convention sets out the rule: a judgment given in a state bound by the Convention and enforceable there is enforced in another state bound by the Convention after it has been declared enforceable there, on the application of any interested party. Three points in this sentence are worth noting. The decision must be enforceable in Switzerland, which the creditor must establish. The declaration is sought by application, so without a summons or a hearing. And it can be sought by any interested party, which includes an assignee of the claim or the successor of the original creditor.
Article 41 specifies the nature of this review: the decision is declared enforceable immediately on completion of the formalities in article 53, without any review under articles 34 and 35, and the party against whom enforcement is sought is not, at this stage, entitled to make submissions. The registry therefore checks the documents, not the merits or international regularity. The debtor is neither summoned nor notified. This asymmetry is deliberate: the Convention reserves the adversarial debate for the appeal stage, precisely so the creditor obtains a title before its debtor is able to organise its insolvency.
Two recent developments complete this picture and are often overlooked. Switzerland acceded on 18 September 2024 to the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on choice of court agreements, which entered into force for it on 1 January 2025: where a contract contains a clause exclusively designating the Swiss or French courts, this Convention offers a second basis, with its own grounds for refusal. Switzerland, however, is not a party to the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the recognition of judgments, unlike the United Kingdom: the regime for Swiss decisions remains that of Lugano, and there is no reason to look elsewhere.
2. The application: who receives it, what documents, how long it takes
The Code of Civil Procedure designates the competent authority. Its article 509-2 provides that applications for recognition or for a declaration of enforceability, on the territory of the Republic, of foreign enforceable titles under, in particular, the Lugano Convention of 30 October 2007, are submitted to the registrar of the judicial court. The creditor therefore applies neither to the enforcement judge nor to the trial bench: it files an application with the registry, in duplicate, precisely listing the documents relied on (article 509-4). No lawyer is required for the application at this stage, though it is rare for a foreign creditor to forgo one.
The documents are those required under articles 53 to 55 of the Convention: an exemplification of the decision meeting the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity, and the certificate issued by the Swiss court on the form in Annex V, certifying that it is enforceable and summarising the details of the decision. This certificate is obtained from the Swiss court that rendered the judgment, within a few days to a few weeks. A translation may be required. Where the decision was rendered by default, the creditor must additionally produce proof that the document instituting proceedings was served on the defendant, failing which the ground for refusal under article 34(2) will succeed at the appeal stage.
The registry’s decision comes within a few weeks, and article 509-5 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires a decision rejecting the application to be reasoned, which allows the creditor to correct a missing document and try again. If granted, the declaration of enforceability is served on the debtor, and it is this service that starts the debtor’s appeal period running. The creditor therefore has an interest in preparing its measures before having service carried out, so as to act on them without delay.
3. What the debtor can still raise, and within what time limit
Article 43 of the Convention gives either party a right of appeal against the decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability. This appeal is brought before the court of appeal, examined under the rules of adversarial procedure, and its time limit is set in paragraph 5: one month from service of the declaration, extended to two months where the party against whom enforcement is sought is domiciled in a state bound by the Convention other than the one where the declaration was issued. In our example, the debtor, domiciled in Monaco, which is not a state bound by the Convention, is subject to the one-month time limit.
The grounds are exhaustively listed in article 34: recognition manifestly contrary to the public policy of the state addressed; failure to serve the document instituting proceedings on a defaulting defendant in good time and in a manner enabling it to defend itself, unless it failed to challenge the decision when able to do so; irreconcilability with a decision given between the same parties in the state addressed; irreconcilability with an earlier decision given in another state bound by the Convention or in a third state, meeting the conditions for its recognition. Article 35 adds disregard of the protective jurisdiction rules for insurance and consumer contracts, as well as exclusive jurisdiction rules. And article 36 in every case prohibits review on the merits.
In practice, the defence available against a Swiss judgment is narrow. Swiss decisions are reasoned, rendered at the end of adversarial proceedings whose standards do not offend French public policy, and the Swiss court’s jurisdiction is not reviewed outside the cases of article 35. The most promising ground remains a default decision against a defendant domiciled in France, where service did not follow the channels required by the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on service abroad. Other arguments, based on the merits or the assessment of evidence, are doomed to fail, as set out in the article on defences against exequatur.
4. Seizing while the appeal period runs: article 47
This is the most useful provision of the Convention for a creditor in a hurry, and the least well known. Article 47(1) states that where a decision must be recognised under the Convention, nothing prevents the applicant from seeking such provisional or protective measures as are available under the law of the state addressed, without needing that decision to be declared enforceable. In other words, the Geneva creditor can have a protective seizure carried out on its debtor’s Paris accounts even before filing its application with the registry, on the basis of articles L. 511-1 and following of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, simply by producing its judgment.
Paragraph 2 of the same article adds that the declaration of enforceability carries with it the authority to proceed to protective measures. Once the declaration has been obtained, the creditor therefore no longer needs to ask the enforcement judge for anything to freeze assets: it registers a protective judicial mortgage on the apartment, pledges the partnership shares, seizes the accounts on a protective basis, and waits for the appeal period to expire. Paragraph 3 specifies that during this period, and until the appeal has been decided, only protective measures may be taken against the debtor’s property. The line is clear: freezing yes, cashing in not yet.
This structure dictates strategy. A prudent creditor carries out its protective measures first, discreetly, then has the declaration of enforceability served, which opens the appeal period. If the debtor does not appeal within the month, the declaration becomes final and the protective seizures convert into enforcement measures. The detailed timeline of these measures, asset by asset, is set out in the article on protective measures before exequatur.
5. Swiss titles that are not judgments
Swiss enforcement law is organised by the Federal Act on Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy, whose logic is foreign to French law. A Swiss creditor pursuing its debtor often obtains, not a judgment on the merits, but an order lifting an opposition (mainlevée). A definitive lifting of opposition, rendered by a judge on the basis of a pre-existing title, is a judicial decision capable of circulating under Lugano; a provisional lifting of opposition, which leaves open an action to be discharged from the debt, has a more uncertain scope and often runs into the requirement of enforceability. The payment demand of Swiss debt enforcement proceedings, for its part, is not a judicial decision and cannot found any application in France.
Swiss notarial deeds received by a notary and bearing enforceable force also circulate, under the Convention’s own regime for them, the only ground for refusal being manifest contrariety to public policy. Approved court settlements follow the same path. Swiss provisional measures, on the other hand, only benefit from the Convention if the debtor was summoned to the proceedings or the decision was served on it before enforcement, a requirement that the Court of Justice of the European Union developed under the equivalent instruments and that French courts apply.
Arbitral awards rendered in Switzerland, very numerous given the standing of Geneva, Zurich and Lausanne in international arbitration, fall entirely outside Lugano, whose article 1 excludes arbitration. They fall under the New York Convention of 1958 and articles 1514 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure, an even faster regime, described in the article on exequatur of arbitral awards. The same applies to awards of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, based in Lausanne.
6. Matters that Lugano does not cover
The Convention applies in civil and commercial matters, but article 1 excludes several areas from it: the status and legal capacity of natural persons, matrimonial property regimes, wills and succession, bankruptcy and similar proceedings, social security, and arbitration. These exclusions matter in Franco-Swiss relations, where cross-border family wealth situations are frequent. A Swiss divorce judgment does not circulate under Lugano as regards the marital bond and division of matrimonial property; it falls under the ordinary law of exequatur, with the conditions of the Cornelissen ruling. A Swiss decision ruling on succession follows the same logic, the EU Succession Regulation not binding Switzerland.
Maintenance obligations, however, remain within Lugano’s scope, even though they were removed from Brussels I bis and entrusted to a specific regulation between member states. Maintenance fixed by a Swiss judge is therefore declared enforceable in France under the procedure described above. As for Swiss decisions rendered in bankruptcy matters, they follow the ordinary law of recognition, France not being bound to Switzerland by any instrument on cross-border insolvency.
7. Moving to enforcement: accounts, real property, partnership shares
Once the declaration of enforceability has become final, the Swiss judgment is an enforceable title within the meaning of article L. 111-3 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, and all French enforcement routes open up. Third-party seizure of bank accounts produces its immediate attribution effect, and the bailiff, now holding an enforceable title, has access to the bank account register to identify the relevant banks. The procedures, the amount exempt from seizure, and the time limits for challenge are set out in the article on attaching bank accounts on a foreign judgment.
The Avenue Foch apartment raises the classic question of a property held through a civil real estate company. The judgment condemns a natural person; the property belongs to a legal entity. Seizure of the real property is closed, unless the company can be shown to be a sham, but the partnership shares the debtor holds in that company can be seized, and a judicial pledge renders them unavailable from the protective stage onward. Seizure of the partner’s rights results in a sale by auction whose starting price is set by the pursuing creditor, with the debtor able to apply to the enforcement judge in case of a manifest shortfall. The routes open against a property and against the shares that hold it are detailed in the article on seizing real property on a foreign judgment.
8. Timeframes, costs and the order of operations
The timeline for an uncontested Swiss case fits within a few months. Obtaining the Annex V certificate from the Swiss court: one to three weeks. Translation and filing the application with the registry: one week. Issuance of the declaration of enforceability: two to six weeks depending on the court. Service on the debtor, then a one-month appeal period, two months if domiciled in a state bound by the Convention. Conversion of protective seizures and payment: one further month. The creditor can therefore hope to be paid within four to six months, provided the assets were frozen from day one.
If the debtor appeals to the court of appeal, allow twelve to twenty-four months more, during which only protective measures are possible. This additional delay is the price of the security the Convention offers, and it explains why many cases are resolved by settlement: a debtor whose accounts are frozen and whose property is encumbered has no economic interest in waiting two years to lose anyway. The question to settle on day one is therefore not whether the Swiss judgment will be recognised, it almost always will be, but which assets can be frozen before the debtor learns that proceedings have begun.
The firm has brought together, in a practical guide on exequatur and enforcement of foreign decisions, the conditions for recognition depending on the origin of the decision, the documents to gather, and the timeline of protective and enforcement measures. It acts for Swiss creditors and their counsel seeking to recover in France, as well as for debtors facing enforcement of a Swiss title; its page on enforcement of foreign judgments describes these engagements, and the contact form allows a case to be outlined in a few lines.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a Swiss judgment enforceable as of right in France?
No. Since Switzerland is not an EU member state, the abolition of exequatur under the Brussels I bis Regulation does not apply. The Lugano Convention of 30 October 2007 requires a declaration of enforceability, issued on application (article 38). This procedure remains, however, very different from an exequatur trial: the debtor is not heard, no review of the grounds for refusal is carried out at this stage, and the declaration is obtained within a few weeks.
Who issues the declaration of enforceability in France?
The registrar of the judicial court, applied to by application in duplicate precisely listing the documents relied on (articles 509-2 and 509-4 of the Code of Civil Procedure). There is no summons, hearing, or debate. A decision rejecting the application must be reasoned (article 509-5), which allows an incomplete file to be corrected. The declaration is then served on the debtor, which triggers its appeal period.
Can the debtor have the case retried in France?
No. Article 36 of the Lugano Convention prohibits review on the merits. The appeal under article 43, brought before the court of appeal within one month of service, is only available on the grounds of articles 34 and 35: manifest public policy, failure of proper service in a default case, irreconcilable decisions, or disregard of protective or exclusive jurisdiction rules. Arguments about the merits of the award belonged to remedies in Switzerland.
Can seizure take place during the debtor’s appeal period?
Yes, but on a protective basis only. Article 47 of the Convention allows the creditor to take protective measures even before the declaration of enforceability, and specifies that the declaration itself carries authority to take such measures. During the appeal period, and until it has been decided, only protective measures are permitted: accounts are frozen and properties encumbered, but no sum is collected before the declaration becomes final.
Is a Swiss definitive lifting of opposition enough?
A definitive lifting of opposition is a judicial decision and can as such be declared enforceable in France under Lugano, provided it is itself enforceable in Switzerland and the Annex V certificate is issued. A provisional lifting of opposition, which leaves open an action to be discharged from the debt, is trickier to work with. The payment demand of Swiss debt enforcement proceedings, which does not come from a judge, cannot on the other hand serve as a basis for any application in France.
On the same subject, from North America: enforcing a Canadian or Quebec judgment in France; on the EU regime: enforcing a German judgment in France; on urgent measures: can the debtor’s assets be secured in France before exequatur; on assets: can real property be seized in France on the strength of a foreign judgment; on the framework applicable to each decision: the six points that determine whether a foreign title will be enforceable; on the Maghreb and francophone Africa: Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and the OHADA area.