Swiss Court Judgments in Russia: Recognition and Enforcement Under the 2026 Legal Framework

You have a Swiss court judgment against a Russian debtor. The debtor has assets in Moscow, St. Petersburg, or elsewhere in Russia. Can you enforce your judgment in Russia? The answer depends on a specific legal framework that differs significantly from the rules governing arbitral awards.

Unlike arbitral awards, which benefit from the 1958 New York Convention, foreign court judgments operate under a more restrictive regime in Russia. For judgments from Switzerland – a country with which Russia has no bilateral legal assistance treaty for civil matters – the path to enforcement is narrow and uncertain. This article explores the legal basis, procedural requirements, and practical challenges creditors may face in 2026.

The Fundamental Distinction: Court Judgments vs. Arbitral Awards

Before diving into procedures, one distinction matters above all others. Russian law treats foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards very differently.

Arbitral awards enjoy a relatively straightforward path to enforcement. Russia is a party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. If you have an arbitration award from Switzerland – for example, from the Swiss Arbitration Centre (SAC) in Geneva – you can seek its recognition and enforcement in Russia based on the Convention, regardless of whether Russia has a separate treaty with Switzerland. As noted by legal experts, Russian courts continue to recognize awards from neutral jurisdictions like Singapore as well as from “unfriendly” states like Sweden and England when it serves Russian business interests.

Foreign court judgments operate under a different, more restrictive regime. Under Article 409 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) of the Russian Federation, decisions of foreign courts are recognized and enforced in Russia only if provided for by an international treaty of the Russian Federation. This is the critical difference.

The Treaty Problem: No Bilateral Agreement with Switzerland

Russia and Switzerland have no bilateral treaty on legal assistance covering the recognition and enforcement of court judgments in civil and commercial matters. While Switzerland has bilateral agreements for enforcement of judgments with several countries – including Russia? – the legal landscape is complex.

It is worth noting that Russia has bilateral legal assistance treaties with some European countries (e.g., with Greece and Italy). However, Switzerland is not among them. According to available legal resources, Switzerland has bilateral agreements on judicial assistance with several countries, including Russia – but this requires careful verification. The absence of a clear treaty basis means that Swiss court judgments cannot rely on a simplified recognition procedure under Russian law.

Switzerland and Russia are both parties to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, this Convention does not provide a basis for the recognition and enforcement of court judgments – it addresses human rights protection, not cross-border judicial cooperation.

The Reciprocity Alternative: Is It Viable?

In the absence of a treaty, could a Swiss judgment be enforced in Russia based on the principle of reciprocity? Russian law does not explicitly provide for reciprocity as an independent ground for enforcing foreign court judgments. Article 409 of the CPC is clear: recognition and enforcement are possible only if provided for by an international treaty.

However, there are nuances. Russian courts have, in limited cases, recognized foreign judgments on the basis of international comity and reciprocity when no treaty existed. But such cases are rare and fact-specific. For a Swiss creditor, proving reciprocity would require demonstrating that Swiss courts have enforced Russian judgments under similar circumstances. This is a difficult evidentiary burden.

The “Unfriendly” Jurisdictions Factor

Since March 2022, Switzerland has been on the Russian government’s list of “unfriendly” states (Order No. 430-r). This designation reflects Switzerland's participation in sanctions imposed on Russia. The “unfriendly” status has practical implications for enforcement proceedings.

In a notable case from January 2026, a Russian appellate court transferred a commercial dispute worth $2.6 million from a Swiss arbitration clause to a Russian state court . The court cited two main grounds: first, the arbitration clause contained an inaccurate name for the arbitral institution (the clause referred to a non-existent “International Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce of Switzerland” instead of the correct Swiss Arbitration Centre); second, the court noted that Switzerland is on the list of “unfriendly” states, which, in the court’s view, substantially limits a Russian claimant's ability to protect its rights in that country.

The court relied on Article 247 of the Arbitration Procedure Code, as well as the so-called “Lugovoy Law” amendments that allow disputes involving foreign parties from “unfriendly” jurisdictions to be transferred to Russian courts. This case illustrates that Swiss court judgments and arbitral awards face heightened scrutiny in Russian courts due to the political context.

The 2026 Constitutional Shield: New Restrictions on Foreign Judgments

Effective January 9, 2026, Russia introduced a significant new restriction on enforcing foreign court decisions. Federal Constitutional Law No. 8-FKZ establishes a direct prohibition on enforcing in Russia decisions of foreign and international courts whose jurisdiction Russia does not recognize.

The law applies to:

• decisions of foreign criminal courts whose jurisdiction has been expanded or delegated without Russia's consent;
• international judicial bodies not based on a treaty ratified by Russia or a UN Security Council resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

While this law primarily targets criminal matters and international tribunals, it reflects a broader trend of Russian courts asserting judicial sovereignty and rejecting extraterritorial application of foreign law. For commercial judgments from Swiss courts, the direct application of this law is limited, but it signals the legislative environment in which enforcement applications are considered.

Legal Framework Under the Civil Procedure Code

For a Swiss court judgment to be enforced in Russia, the creditor must follow the procedure set out in Chapter 45 of the CPC.

Which Court Has Jurisdiction?

Under Article 410 of the CPC, the application for enforcement of a foreign court judgment must be filed with:

• the supreme court of a republic, regional court, or court of a federal city where the debtor resides or has its location in Russia;
• if the debtor has no known residence or location in Russia, the court where the debtor’s property is situated.

The Three-Year Limitation Period

Article 409(3) of the CPC establishes a three-year limitation period for presenting a foreign judgment for enforcement, running from the date the judgment entered into legal force in the country where it was issued. If the three-year period expires, the creditor may request restoration of the deadline under Article 112 of the CPC, but courts apply this provision strictly.

Required Documents

Article 411 of the CPC specifies the documents that must accompany an application for enforcement of a foreign court judgment:

Grounds for Refusal

Article 412 of the CPC lists the grounds on which a Russian court may refuse enforcement of a foreign court judgment:

If the debtor does not raise these objections, the court may still refuse enforcement on grounds related to public policy and exclusive jurisdiction.

Practical Challenges for Swiss Creditors

No Treaty Basis Is the Primary Obstacle

The absence of a bilateral treaty between Russia and Switzerland is the fundamental obstacle. Unlike judgments from countries with which Russia has such treaties (e.g., many CIS states, some European countries), Swiss judgments cannot rely on a simplified recognition procedure. The creditor must navigate a system that offers no clear statutory basis for enforcement.

Reciprocity Is Uncertain

Even if a Russian court were willing to consider reciprocity, proving that Swiss courts would enforce a Russian judgment is difficult. There is limited publicly available case law on Swiss courts recognizing Russian judgments. The evidentiary burden on the creditor is high.

The “Unfriendly” Designation Creates an Uphill Battle

Switzerland’s designation as an “unfriendly” state influences judicial discretion. Russian courts may be less inclined to enforce judgments from “unfriendly” jurisdictions, particularly in cases where the judgment involves sanctions-related issues or where the debtor is a sanctioned Russian entity.

Public Policy Arguments Are Increasingly Common

Russian courts have expanded their interpretation of public policy in recent years. In cases involving judgments from “unfriendly” jurisdictions, debtors frequently argue that enforcement would violate Russian public policy. Courts have shown willingness to consider these arguments, especially where enforcement could affect Russian economic interests.

What About the Reverse? Enforcing Russian Judgments in Switzerland

The reciprocity question cuts both ways. For a Swiss creditor seeking to prove reciprocity before a Russian court, it would be helpful to demonstrate that Russian judgments have been enforced in Switzerland.

Switzerland is a party to the Lugano Convention of 2007, which governs the recognition and enforcement of judgments between EU member states and Switzerland, Iceland, and Norway. However, Russia is not a party to the Lugano Convention.

In a recent development, the Swiss Federal Criminal Court issued a ruling on January 20, 2026 (RR.2023.127-133) concerning the return of seized funds to Russia . The court noted that mutual assistance with Russia has been suspended due to the political and judicial climate, and referred the case back for a determination on whether cooperation is compatible with Swiss public policy under Article 1a of the Swiss International Mutual Assistance Act. This case illustrates that judicial cooperation between Russia and Switzerland is currently strained, which may affect reciprocity arguments.

Practical Recosmmendations for Swiss Creditor

If you hold a Swiss court judgment against a Russian debtor, consider the following:

• Consider arbitration for future contracts.If you are negotiating contracts with Russian partners, include an arbitration clause. Arbitral awards benefit from the New York Convention and are not subject to the same treaty requirements as court judgments. As the Stonebridge Legal seminar noted, Russian courts continue to recognize arbitral awards from both neutral and “unfriendly” jurisdictions when it serves Russian business interests.
• Seek legal advice before filing.Given the complexity and uncertainty, consult with Russian counsel experienced in cross-border enforcement before investing time and resources.
• Ensure proper service in the original proceedings.One of the most common grounds for refusal is lack of proper notice to the Russian party. Make sure the Swiss proceedings included legally valid service that will be recognized in Russia.
• Prepare for public policy arguments.Anticipate that the debtor may argue that enforcement violates Russian public policy. Be prepared to counter these arguments with evidence of the commercial nature of the dispute and the procedural fairness of the Swiss proceedings.
• Consider asset location.If the Russian debtor has assets outside Russia, enforcing the Swiss judgment in another jurisdiction may be more straightforward.

Conclusion

Enforcing a Swiss court judgment in Russia is challenging and uncertain. Unlike arbitral awards, which benefit from the New York Convention, Swiss court judgments lack a treaty basis for enforcement in Russia. The absence of a bilateral legal assistance treaty, combined with Switzerland’s “unfriendly” designation and recent legislative developments restricting foreign judgments, creates significant obstacles.

For Swiss creditors, the most practical approach is to:

• consider arbitration for future contracts with Russian parties;
• consult with experienced Russian counsel before pursuing enforcement;
• act within the three-year limitation period if filing an application;
• maintain realistic expectations about the prospects of success.

If you are planning future contracts with Russian partners, adding an arbitration clause to your agreement can provide a more predictable enforcement path under the New York Convention than relying on the uncertain recognition of court judgments.

Our law firm, Economic Disputes, has been operating in the B2B market since 2019 and specializes in comprehensive business support, including international business. Our team consists of 15 lawyers and specialists, each with 15 to 25 years of experience in corporate law, tax consulting, and international commercial arbitration. Our practice manager, Sergey Belyavsky, brings 20 years of unparalleled experience in commercial courts, including 10 years as a judge, which allows us to assess risks from a practical perspective. We are members of the Austrian Arbitration Association (AEA) and have a partner network in over 160 countries. Results are our priority: throughout our work, we have recovered and saved our clients 1.95 billion rubles, supported by over 100 reviews with an average rating of 4.95 out of 5. We handle cases in Russian, Polish, and English and are ready to assist even in the most challenging situations. For the convenience of our international clients, we maintain a bank account with PKO Bank Polski to facilitate efficient cross-border settlements. If your company needs legal support, submit a request – we will offer a realistic solution.