Instrument
The Lugano Convention and Switzerland
The Lugano Convention (2007) is the route Switzerland uses to recognise and enforce judgments from EU and EFTA states, and the reverse. It applies instead of Brussels Ia between those states. This page states what it covers and where it stops. It does not predict how a court will rule on a specific file. For the wider mechanics of collecting on an unpaid judgment, see enforcement of unpaid judgments.
Scope
The Convention applies as the main route between Switzerland and EU or EFTA member states, standing in for Brussels Ia in that relationship. It covers recognition and enforcement of judgments issued in those states. It does not reach judgments from states outside that circle, however similar the subject matter looks on paper.
Switzerland is not a contracting party to the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention. A judgment from a state that shares only Hague 2019 with the state of origin needs a different route into Switzerland. The two instruments do not overlap by default, and a file that mixes them needs each leg checked separately.
Where the concern is freezing assets in an EU state while a Swiss judgment or the underlying claim is still moving, the mechanics sit outside Lugano itself. See the European Account Preservation Order for that separate route.
Where it applies
The 2007 Convention binds Switzerland together with EU member states and the other EFTA states that ratified it, replacing the 1988 version between those states for matters within its scope.
Which specific states outside the EU are bound, and the exact date each accession took effect for Switzerland, is not confirmed in the sources checked for this page. Do not rely on this page for a state-by-date table. Verify the specific pair before filing.
Refusal to enforce a judgment that should move through this route is one of the situations this firm handles. See refusal to enforce a judgment for what to check before reacting.
Traps
Do not assume Hague 2019 fills the gap outside the Lugano circle. Switzerland does not appear on the list of contracting parties to the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention. A judgment from a state that shares only Hague 2019 with the state of origin does not travel into Switzerland on that basis.
Hague 2019 itself only applies where the convention was already in force between the two states when proceedings started in the state of origin. That temporal condition is separate from anything under Lugano and is easy to miss when a file touches more than one instrument.
Whether an interim measure is available while recognition is pending is established from the materials of the specific case, not from the convention's text alone.
For the practical sequence used when a judgment goes unpaid, see non-enforcement of judgments and the discussion of demanding money back when a judgment on frozen crypto accounts goes unpaid.
How it is used in practice
In practice, this route moves a Swiss judgment into an EU or EFTA court, or the reverse, without restarting the underlying claim in the new state. Whether it applies to a specific judgment depends on where and when the original proceedings started and what kind of decision was issued.
The party resisting enforcement will often argue the judgment falls outside the relevant version of the instrument, or that a procedural condition was missed. Checking that ground before filing is part of what cross-border recognition and enforcement work covers.
This firm does not work on a success-fee basis for this kind of matter, and its registration can be checked in the public register linked from the footer. Before engaging any firm on a cross-border judgment, check how; see how to verify a law firm. More on who works on this page is on the about page.