Switzerland

• Pages: 365-410

365

CHAPTER XVIII

SWITZERLAND

A. Introduction

1. Background

Switzerland subscribes to the prevailing civil law view that the taking

of evidence is a judicial function.1 Swiss courts thus exercise substantial

control over the collection of evidence for use in foreign proceedings.

Collection of evidence in Switzerland for any foreign proceedings without

the participation or consent of Swiss officials, by way of pretrial discovery

or otherwise, may be considered a violation of Swiss sovereignty and may

lead to criminal sanctions. In addition, the principle of confidentiality may

prevail depending on the circumstances, also in Swiss proceedings, over

the administration of related evidence.

The statutes that uphold Swiss sovereignty in connection with efforts

to obtain discovery in Switzerland for use in foreign proceedings and

protect confidential information have regularly been enforced. In cases

where a foreign subpoena or other court order would lead to a violation of

Swiss sovereignty or criminal statutes, the Swiss government has filed

1. ANNETTE DOLGE, MYRIAM GEHRI & KARL SPÜHLER, SCHWEIZ ERISCHES

ZIVILPROZESSRECHT 197 (Stämpfli Verlag AG, 9th ed. 2010); PASCAL

GROLIMUND, ADRIAN STAEHELIN & DANIEL STAEHELIN,

ZIVILPROZESSRECHT 299, 337 (Schulthess ed., 2nd ed. 2013); JOLANTA

KREN KOSTKIEWICZ & RODRIGO RODRIGUEZ, INTERNATIONALE

RECHTSHILFE IN ZIVILSACHEN 1 (Stämpfli Verlag AG, 1st ed. 2013);

RICHARD FRANK ET AL., KOMMENTAR ZUR ZÜRCHERISCHEN

ZIVILPROZESSORDNUNG § 133 (Schulthess ed., 3d ed. 1997); ADRIAN

DÖRIG, ANERKENNUNG UND VOLLSTRECKUNG US-AMERIKANISCHER

ENTSCHEIDUNGEN IN DER SCHWEIZ 410 (Dike ed., 1998); SWITZ. FED.

OFFICE OF JUSTICE, INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CIVIL

MATTERS GUIDELINES 2 (Jan. 2013), www.rhf.admin.ch/etc/medialib/

data/rhf.Par.0064.File.tmp/wegl-ziv-e.pdf [hereinafter SWITZ. INT’L

LEGAL ASSISTANCE GUIDELINES]; Amicus Brief of Gov’t of Switz. at 1,

U.S. v. UBS AG, (No: 09-20423-CIV), 2009 WL 1612394 (S.D. Fla.).

Obtaining Discovery Abroad

366

amicus curiae briefs in U.S. cases, lodged diplomatic protests, and seized

the documents concerned.2

For example, following the confrontation between U.S. and Swiss

authorities in In re Marc Rich & Co., AG,3 on November 10, 1987, the two

countries entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU)

confirming that the existing mechanisms for the exchange of information

should be used, and that the two countries should consult with each other

early on if difficulties are expected.4 The parties also stated their intention

to apply moderation and reticence in the application of unilateral

compulsory measures against which the other party objects, or in blocking

such measures.5 While the MOU by its terms relates to legal assistance in

criminal matters, the principles expressed seem to be of equal importance

for assistance in civil and commercial matters.

2. The Swiss constitution is the basis for such measures which provides that

the Federal Council may issue ordinances and rulings where safeguarding

the interests of the country so requires. BUNDESVERFASSUNG [BV]

[CONSTITUTION] Apr. 18, 1999, SR 101, art. 184(3) (Switz.), translated in

the Federal Council online database https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/

classified-compilation/19995395/index.html. See also Bundesgerichts

[BGE] [Federal Supreme Court] Sept. 30, 1988, 114 ENTSCHEIDUNGEN

DES SCHWEIZERISCHEN BUNDESGERICHTS [BGE] IV 128 (Switz.);

Bundesgerichts [BGE] [Federal Supreme Court] Sept. 26, 1980, 106

ENTSCHEIDUNGEN DES SCHWEIZERISCHEN BUNDESGERICHTS [BGE] Ib 260

(Switz.); In re Marc Rich & Co., AG, 707 F.2d 663 (2d Cir. 1983);

Bundesrat (Federal Council), Mar. 17, 1986, 51/1 VERWALTUNGSPRAXIS

DER BUNDESBEHÖRDEN [VPB] no. 36 (Switz.) (decision of Swiss federal

government regarding In re Marc Rich); Société Nationale Industrielle

Aérospatiale v. United States Dist. Court, 482 U.S. 522 (1987); Urs Zulauf,

Kooperation Mit Dem Ausland: Verrat An Der Schweiz?: Kooperation mit

dem Ausland : Verrat an der Schweiz ? : Gedanken zu den Schweizer

Verbotsgesetzen (“Blocking Statutes”) von Art. 271 und 273 StG B und Art.

47 BankG, in FESTSCHRIFT FÜR PETER NOBEL ZUM 60. GEBURTSTAG, 1075,

1082 (Robert Waldburger et al. eds. 2005); Georg Friedli, Insider-

geschäfte, Praktische Erfahrungen in der Rechtshilfe, in BEITRÄGE ZUM

SCHWEIZERISCHEN BANKENRECHT 254 (Rudolf Von Graffenried ed.,

1987); Amicus Brief of Gov’t of Switz., supra note 1.

3. 707 F.2d 663 (2d Cir. 1983).

4. Memorandum Of Understanding Between the Government of the United

States of America and the Government of Switzerland on Mutual

Assistance in Criminal Matters and Ancillary Administrative Proceedings,

Switz.-U.S., Nov. 10, 1987, 27 I.L.M. 480.

5. Id. ¶¶ III(3), IV.

Switzerland

367

2. Legal Framework Governing Assistance in Civil and Commercial

Matters

The 1965 Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and

Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters6 and the 1970

Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and

Commercial Matters7 have been in force in Switzerland since January 1,

1995. Legal assistance for civil and commercial matters between

Switzerland and the United States is mainly subject to these conventions.

Switzerland considers that taking of evidence abroad shall exclusively be

administered through the Hague Evidence Convention among signatory

states.8 This is consistent with the usual practice in civil law countries. In

addition, the permanent bureau of the Conference of The Hague supports

the principle of priority of recourse to the Hague Evidence Convention so

as to respect the sovereignty of states and international comity.9

As discussed in Chapter III, U.S. courts deny the exclusive and

mandatory applicability of the Hague Evidence Convention and

commonly apply the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instead,

particularly if the granting of judicial assistance according to the Hague

Evidence Convention seems unlikely.10

3. Civil Litigation in Switzerland

Swiss legal assistance in obtaining discovery in connection with

foreign civil matters is influenced by the way civil litigation is conducted

in Switzerland. In Swiss civil proceedings, the plaintiff states its claim

with great particularity in the initial pleadings and usually submits

documentary evidence with the statement of claim. The plaintiff’s initial

pleadings also identify witnesses who would testify in support of the claim

6. Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents

in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361.

7. Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial

Matters, Mar. 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555; T.I.A.S. No. 7444; 847 U.N.T.S.

231, reprinted in 8 I.L.M. 37 (1969) [hereinafter Hague Evidence

Convention].

8. See Declaration/Reservation/Notification, HCCH, available at

www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/notifications/?csid

=561&disp=resdn [hereinafter Swiss Declarations].

9. DANIELLE GAUTHEY & ALEXANDER R. MARKUS, L'ENTRAIDE JUDICIAIRE

INTERNATIONALE EN MATIÈRE CIVILE 172-173 (Stämpfli Verlag AG 2014).

10. Given the liberal practice of Swiss courts in granting assistance, such

situations should not regularly occur.