Enforcing a Switzerland Court Judgment in Germany

To enforce a Switzerland court judgment in Germany, a creditor must obtain a declaration of enforceability - known as an Exequatur - from a competent German regional court. The process is governed primarily by the Lugano Convention, which Switzerland and Germany both apply, and it is considerably more structured than many creditors expect. This guide explains the legal framework, the step-by-step procedure, realistic timelines and costs, the defences a German debtor can raise, and the practical strategies that improve a creditor's chances of recovery.

The 2007 Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters is the central instrument for cross-border enforcement between Switzerland and EU member states, including Germany. Because Switzerland is not a member of the European Union, the Brussels I Recast Regulation - which applies between EU states - does not govern Swiss judgments. The Lugano Convention fills that gap and creates a parallel regime that closely mirrors Brussels I in structure and effect.

Under the Lugano Convention, a judgment given by a Swiss court in civil or commercial matters is entitled to recognition and enforcement in Germany without any re-examination of the merits. The German court does not retry the case. It reviews only whether the formal and procedural conditions of the Convention are satisfied. This distinction matters enormously in practice: a creditor who has obtained a well-reasoned Swiss judgment on the substance of a dispute is in a strong position, provided the procedural requirements are met.

The Convention applies to judgments in civil and commercial matters. It does not cover revenue, customs or administrative matters, nor does it apply to certain excluded categories such as status and capacity of natural persons, matrimonial property regimes, wills and succession, bankruptcy, or arbitration. A creditor whose Swiss judgment falls outside civil and commercial matters must consider alternative routes, which are discussed later in this guide.

German courts applying the Lugano Convention will recognise a Swiss judgment automatically, but enforcement requires a formal declaration. Before that declaration is granted, the judgment must satisfy several baseline conditions.

The Swiss court must have had jurisdiction under the rules of the Lugano Convention itself. German courts will refuse recognition if the Swiss court assumed jurisdiction on a basis that the Convention does not permit. In practice, most commercial judgments from Swiss courts - particularly those based on a valid jurisdiction clause or on the defendant's domicile in Switzerland - satisfy this requirement without difficulty.

The judgment must be final and enforceable in Switzerland. A judgment that is still subject to an ordinary appeal in Switzerland is not yet enforceable there, and the German court will not grant an Exequatur for it. Creditors should obtain a certificate of enforceability from the Swiss court that issued the judgment before filing in Germany. This certificate is a mandatory document under the Convention.

The judgment must not conflict with a prior judgment given in Germany between the same parties on the same subject matter. It must also not have been obtained in proceedings that violated the defendant's right to be heard - particularly if the defendant was a German domiciliary who was not properly served with the Swiss proceedings. This is one of the most frequently invoked grounds of refusal and is discussed further in the section on defences.

Finally, recognition must not be manifestly contrary to German public policy - the ordre public exception. German courts apply this standard narrowly. A Swiss judgment awarding punitive damages far in excess of compensatory damages, or one obtained through fraud, might engage this exception. Ordinary commercial judgments, including those with interest and costs, rarely do.

The enforcement process in Germany follows a defined sequence under the Lugano Convention and the German implementing legislation, the Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsausführungsgesetz (AVAG).

Filing the application at the competent Landgericht

The application for a declaration of enforceability is filed at the Landgericht - the regional court - in whose district the debtor is domiciled or where the debtor's assets are located. If neither criterion points to a specific court, the applicant may choose among the courts listed in the AVAG. The application is made ex parte at the first stage: the debtor is not heard initially, which is a deliberate feature of the Convention designed to prevent asset dissipation.

The application must be accompanied by a certified copy of the Swiss judgment and the certificate of enforceability issued by the Swiss court. If the documents are in German, no translation is required - Swiss German-language judgments from cantons such as Zurich, Bern or Basel are accepted directly. French or Italian-language judgments from Swiss cantons require a certified German translation. Creditors from Romandy or Ticino often underestimate the cost and time this adds.

The ex parte declaration of enforceability

The Landgericht examines the application on the documents alone. It checks the formal conditions: jurisdiction of the Swiss court, finality and enforceability of the judgment, and the absence of obvious grounds for refusal. If the conditions are met, the court issues the Exequatur - the declaration of enforceability - typically within two to six weeks of filing. The debtor is notified of the declaration after it is issued.

The debtor's right to appeal

Once notified, the debtor has one month to file an appeal against the Exequatur if domiciled in Germany, or two months if domiciled abroad. The appeal is heard by the Oberlandesgericht - the higher regional court. At this stage the debtor can raise the grounds of refusal under the Lugano Convention: lack of jurisdiction of the Swiss court, violation of the right to be heard, conflict with a prior judgment, or breach of public policy. The debtor cannot reopen the merits of the Swiss judgment.

If the Oberlandesgericht upholds the Exequatur, the debtor may seek a further review on points of law before the Bundesgerichtshof - the Federal Court of Justice - but only on limited legal grounds. In practice, most enforcement proceedings are resolved at the Oberlandesgericht level.

Enforcement measures after the Exequatur

Once the Exequatur is final, the creditor holds a German enforcement title and can use all German enforcement mechanisms. These include attachment of bank accounts (Kontopfändung), attachment of wages or salary (Lohnpfändung), seizure of movable assets by a bailiff (Gerichtsvollzieher), and registration of a charge over German real property (Zwangshypothek). The choice of measure depends on the debtor's asset profile and the size of the claim.

A common mistake at this stage is failing to locate assets before commencing enforcement. German enforcement mechanisms are effective only against identified assets. Creditors who obtain the Exequatur but have not investigated the debtor's German asset position often find themselves holding an enforceable title with no practical route to recovery.

Timeline

The overall timeline from filing the application to completing enforcement depends on whether the debtor contests the Exequatur. In uncontested cases - where the debtor does not appeal or the appeal is quickly dismissed - the process from filing to a final Exequatur typically takes two to four months. Where the debtor appeals to the Oberlandesgericht and the matter is contested, the timeline extends to twelve to eighteen months. A further appeal to the Bundesgerichtshof can add another twelve months or more.

Creditors should plan for the contested scenario as the baseline, particularly where the debtor is a commercial entity with legal resources. In practice, many debtors file a holding appeal to delay enforcement even when the substantive grounds are weak.

Costs

Court fees in Germany are calculated on the value of the claim under the Gerichtskostengesetz. For a mid-sized commercial claim, court fees at the Landgericht and Oberlandesgericht levels are typically modest relative to the claim value, but they are not negligible. Professional fees for German counsel are the larger cost driver. Lawyers' fees in Germany are regulated by the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz for court proceedings, but parties frequently agree on hourly rates for complex cross-border matters. For a contested enforcement proceeding through two court levels, professional fees usually start from the low thousands of EUR and can rise significantly for high-value or complex disputes.

Translation costs for French or Italian-language Swiss judgments add a further layer. Certified legal translations of lengthy commercial judgments can run to several hundred EUR per page. Creditors should budget for this before filing.

If enforcement measures are required after the Exequatur - such as bailiff fees, court fees for account attachment orders, or land registry charges - these add further costs. Many of these costs are recoverable from the debtor if enforcement is successful, but recovery depends on the debtor having sufficient assets.

In practice, founders and managers should consider whether the expected recovery justifies the enforcement cost. For claims below a certain threshold, the cost-benefit calculation may favour negotiated settlement or alternative dispute resolution even after a Swiss judgment has been obtained.

If you are assessing whether to proceed with enforcement in Germany and need a realistic cost and strategy assessment, contact info@vlolawfirm.com. We can help structure the setup correctly the first time.

The Lugano Convention limits the grounds on which a German debtor can resist enforcement. The debtor cannot challenge the merits of the Swiss judgment. The available defences are procedural and jurisdictional.

Lack of jurisdiction of the Swiss court

The debtor may argue that the Swiss court lacked jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention. This defence is most likely to succeed where the Swiss court assumed jurisdiction on a basis not recognised by the Convention - for example, relying solely on the claimant's domicile in Switzerland rather than the defendant's. Creditors can pre-empt this defence by ensuring the Swiss proceedings were founded on a valid Lugano Convention basis: a jurisdiction clause, the defendant's domicile in Switzerland, or the place of performance of a contractual obligation.

Violation of the right to be heard

If the defendant was domiciled in Germany and was not served with the Swiss proceedings in sufficient time to arrange a defence, the German court may refuse enforcement. This is the most frequently litigated defence in practice. A non-obvious requirement is that service must comply not only with Swiss procedural law but also with the Hague Service Convention, which both Switzerland and Germany apply. Creditors who served the German defendant through informal channels or through Swiss postal service alone - without using the formal Hague Convention channels - risk having the Exequatur refused on this ground.

Public policy

The ordre public defence is narrow but not theoretical. A Swiss judgment that awards damages calculated on a basis fundamentally incompatible with German legal principles, or one obtained through procedural fraud, may engage this exception. In practice, standard commercial judgments for debt, damages or costs do not raise public policy concerns.

Practical scenario: the contesting debtor

Consider a German GmbH that was a party to a Swiss commercial contract and lost a claim before the Handelsgericht Zurich. The GmbH files an appeal against the Exequatur, arguing that it was not properly served with the Swiss proceedings. The creditor must demonstrate compliance with the Hague Service Convention at the Oberlandesgericht. If the creditor can produce the formal service certificate (Zustellungsurkunde) issued under the Hague Convention, the defence will likely fail. If the creditor cannot, enforcement may be delayed or refused.

Practical scenario: the non-contesting debtor with hidden assets

A German individual debtor does not contest the Exequatur but has transferred assets to a spouse before the Swiss judgment was issued. The creditor holds a final Exequatur but faces difficulty identifying attachable assets. In this scenario, the creditor should consider applying for a Vermögensauskunft - a sworn statement of assets - under German enforcement law, which compels the debtor to disclose assets under oath. Failure to comply or false disclosure is a criminal offence under German law.

When the Lugano Convention does not apply

If the Swiss judgment falls outside the scope of the Lugano Convention - for example, because it concerns a matter excluded from the Convention's scope - the creditor must rely on German autonomous private international law, specifically the rules in the Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO). Under the ZPO, German courts will recognise a foreign judgment if the foreign court had jurisdiction under German conflict-of-laws principles, the judgment is final, recognition is not contrary to public policy, and reciprocity exists. Germany and Switzerland have a long history of mutual recognition, and reciprocity is generally not an obstacle. The procedure under the ZPO is similar in structure to the Lugano Convention route but lacks the Convention's streamlined framework.

Arbitral awards versus court judgments

If the underlying Swiss decision is an arbitral award rather than a court judgment, the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards applies instead of the Lugano Convention. Germany is a signatory to the New York Convention, and enforcement of Swiss arbitral awards in Germany follows the New York Convention procedure, which is generally considered creditor-friendly. Creditors who have a choice between litigating in Swiss courts and arbitrating under Swiss-seated arbitration should factor in the enforcement route when making that choice.

Interim measures and asset preservation

A creditor who has obtained a Swiss judgment but has not yet commenced the Exequatur procedure in Germany may apply to a German court for provisional attachment (Arrest) of the debtor's German assets. This requires demonstrating a prima facie claim and a risk of asset dissipation. The existence of a final Swiss judgment is strong evidence of the prima facie claim. Interim attachment prevents the debtor from moving assets during the Exequatur proceedings and is a powerful tool that many creditors overlook.

Choosing the right German counsel

Cross-border enforcement requires German counsel who understands both the Lugano Convention framework and German enforcement procedure. A common mistake is instructing a German lawyer who handles domestic enforcement but has limited experience with the Lugano Convention's specific requirements. The procedural steps - particularly the documentation requirements and the service compliance issues - differ from purely domestic enforcement and require specialist knowledge.

What happens if the Swiss judgment was issued in default of appearance by the German defendant?

A default judgment issued by a Swiss court is enforceable in Germany under the Lugano Convention, but it is particularly vulnerable to the right-to-be-heard defence. The German court will scrutinise whether the defendant was served with the Swiss proceedings in accordance with the Hague Service Convention and had sufficient time to respond. If service was defective, the Exequatur will be refused. Creditors who obtained a Swiss default judgment should carefully review the service record before filing in Germany and obtain a formal Hague Convention service certificate if one was not obtained during the Swiss proceedings. Retroactive correction of service defects is generally not possible, so prevention at the Swiss stage is essential.

How long does the entire process take, and what is a realistic cost range?

In an uncontested case, the process from filing the application to a final Exequatur takes approximately two to four months. If the debtor appeals to the Oberlandesgericht, the timeline extends to twelve to eighteen months, and a further appeal to the Bundesgerichtshof can add another year. Total professional fees for a contested proceeding through two court levels typically start from the low thousands of EUR and can rise substantially for high-value claims. Court fees are calculated on the claim value and are generally modest relative to professional fees. Translation costs for non-German-language Swiss judgments should be budgeted separately. Enforcement measures after the Exequatur - bailiff fees, account attachment costs - add further expense but are often recoverable from the debtor.

Can a creditor enforce a Swiss judgment in Germany if the debtor has already filed for insolvency in Germany?

If the German debtor is subject to insolvency proceedings in Germany, individual enforcement actions are automatically stayed under the German Insolvenzordnung. The creditor cannot use the Exequatur to attach assets that form part of the insolvency estate. Instead, the creditor must file a proof of claim (Forderungsanmeldung) with the German insolvency administrator. The Swiss judgment is strong evidence of the claim's existence and amount, but the creditor participates in the insolvency distribution alongside other creditors. If the insolvency proceedings have not yet been opened but the debtor is insolvent, a creditor who moves quickly to obtain and execute the Exequatur before insolvency is opened may be able to secure priority over unsecured creditors, subject to insolvency claw-back rules.

Enforcing a Swiss court judgment in Germany is a structured process governed by the Lugano Convention and implemented through German courts. The procedure is creditor-friendly in design but requires careful attention to documentation, service compliance, and asset identification. Contested proceedings can extend the timeline significantly, and creditors should budget accordingly. Early legal advice - both on the Swiss side during the original proceedings and on the German side before filing the Exequatur application - substantially improves the prospects of successful recovery.

VLO Law Firm advises international clients on judgment enforcement in Switzerland and cross-border recognition proceedings in Germany. We can assist with Exequatur applications, service compliance review, asset tracing strategy, and coordination with German enforcement counsel. To request a consultation, contact: info@vlolawfirm.com