How to Enforce a Ukrainian Arbitral Award in Switzerland: A Creditor’s Guide

The situation is a familiar one. You have won at the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the award is in your hands, and the debtor is a Swiss company or holds an account with a Swiss bank. One question follows: how do you turn the paper into money.

The short answer is that you can. Switzerland is among the most arbitration-friendly jurisdictions, the grounds for refusal are read narrowly, and no Swiss court will revisit the merits. But the mechanics are not what a Ukrainian creditor expects: Switzerland has no standalone exequatur for foreign arbitral awards. Recognition happens inside ordinary debt enforcement proceedings — which is why the order of steps matters more than the theory.

Switzerland and Ukraine are both parties to the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Switzerland follows a monist approach, so the Convention applies directly, without implementing legislation, and cantonal courts apply it as it stands.

Article 194 of the Federal Act on Private International Law (PILA) refers precisely to that Convention. Because of monism, the provision is largely declaratory: it creates no separate regime, it confirms that the Convention governs.

One detail that is often forgotten: Switzerland withdrew its reciprocity reservation in 1993. The Convention therefore applies to awards made in any State, whether or not it is a contracting party. For a Ukrainian creditor this means the question of reciprocity simply does not arise.

Article IV of the Convention asks the creditor for two things: the duly authenticated original award or a certified copy, and the original or a certified copy of the arbitration agreement. Where the documents are not in an official language of the canton, a translation certified by an official or sworn translator or by a diplomatic agent is required.

In practice the Swiss courts are lenient: the Federal Supreme Court has accepted simple copies instead of certified ones where authenticity was not in doubt, and awards in English usually need no translation at all. ICAC awards, however, are issued in Ukrainian or Russian, so budget for the translation and build it into your timetable from the start — it is the most predictable cost in the whole exercise.

Monetary claims travel through proceedings under the Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (SchKG, also cited as DEBA). Recognition of the award takes place inside those proceedings, not before them.

Step 1. Application to the debt collection office (Betreibungsamt) at the debtor’s location — articles 46 to 55 SchKG. The fee under article 16 GebV SchKG follows a scale tied to the amount claimed and is capped at CHF 400 for claims above one million. The claim is converted into Swiss francs at the rate on the date of filing.

Step 2. The payment order (Zahlungsbefehl) under article 67 SchKG. The office serves it on the debtor; at this stage nobody examines either the underlying claim or the award.

Step 3. If the debtor stays silent, enforcement continues automatically and the award is never examined at all. This is the cheapest scenario, and it is more common than people expect.

Step 4. If the debtor objects (Rechtsvorschlag), enforcement stops and you apply to the court to set the objection aside (Rechtsöffnung). This is the first and only point at which the court looks at the award: it checks the formal Convention requirements and the grounds for refusal under Article V, in summary proceedings. The court fee under article 48 GebV SchKG is again a scale: up to CHF 2,000 for claims between CHF 100,000 and one million, and up to CHF 4,000 for claims above two million.

This is where we correct ourselves. An earlier version of this material said the enforcement period is three years under article 475 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. That is inaccurate, and the confusion is a common one.

Article 475 CPC is a Ukrainian procedural deadline. Paragraph 3 gives three years from the date the award was made to file an application for recognition and leave to enforce — with the appellate court whose jurisdiction covers the city of Kyiv. It governs enforcement in Ukraine and says nothing to a Swiss court. Missing it means the application is returned without consideration in Kyiv, not that enforcement is refused in Bern or Zurich.

Switzerland treats prescription as a matter of substantive law, and it is raised at the enforcement stage rather than on recognition. Two situations follow:

• where Swiss law governs the claim, article 137(2) of the Code of Obligations applies: a claim established by a judgment acquires a fresh ten-year prescription period;
• where the law of the State of origin governs, its rules apply. In 5A_110/2021 the Federal Supreme Court treated that approach as well founded, precisely because the new prescription period arises when the decision becomes final.

The practical point for a Ukrainian creditor: count under the substantive prescription rules, not under article 475 CPC — and do not wait. The three-year clock that genuinely runs is the one for enforcing in Ukraine, if assets turn up here as well.

The list is exhaustive and sits in Article V of the Convention. How the burden is divided matters more than the list itself.

The debtor must prove incapacity of a party or invalidity of the arbitration agreement; lack of proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the proceedings; that the award goes beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement; that the composition of the tribunal or the procedure did not accord with the parties’ agreement or the law of the seat; or that the award has not yet become binding, or has been set aside or suspended at the seat.

The court examines on its own motion only two things: whether the subject matter is capable of settlement by arbitration under Swiss law, and whether recognition would offend public policy. Swiss courts are notably reluctant to find a public policy violation.

Two Federal Supreme Court positions are worth knowing:

• 5A_1046/2019 of 27 May 2020 — even where a ground for refusal is established, the court retains discretion to allow recognition and enforcement;
• 4A_95/2021 of 17 June 2021 — where two international instruments could govern recognition, priority goes to the one that makes enforcement easier.

An award against a Swiss debtor is an asset, not a piece of paper. The procedure is well worn, the case law is predictable, and by European standards the official fees are modest: in a typical matter translation and representation will cost more than the state charges.

Three things decide the outcome. First, locating the assets before the debtor learns of your intentions, and where appropriate starting with an attachment under article 271 SchKG. Second, an Article IV bundle assembled and translated in advance. Third, not letting time pass: prescription here is substantive, and every month of delay hands the debtor another argument.

On the opposite direction — recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Ukraine — we have written separately: Guide to the enforcement of arbitral awards in Ukraine.

Updated 13 August 2026; the year has been removed from the title so that the guide is not turned into an annual page. The enforcement route is stated under the Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (SchKG), the fees under its Fee Ordinance (GebV SchKG, articles 16 and 48), the grounds for refusal under Article V of the 1958 New York Convention, and the Ukrainian time limit under article 475(3) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court positions are decisions 5A_1046/2019, 4A_95/2021 and 5A_110/2021. Fee levels and cantonal practice change — verify the current versions and coordinate the steps with local counsel before filing.