Debt enforcement and attachment: the SchKG as an instrument of recovery

The payment order and the setting aside of objections

The Federal Act on Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy (Bundesgesetz über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs, SchKG, in English DEBA) of 1889 is one of the oldest federal codifications still in force and one of the most practical. It organises the enforcement of money claims through cantonal debt enforcement offices, which in the city of Zurich are organised by district. Proceedings begin with a request by the creditor to the debt enforcement office at the debtor’s domicile or seat. The office issues a payment order (Zahlungsbefehl) without examining whether the claim exists. The debtor may then lodge an objection (Rechtsvorschlag) within ten days, without giving reasons, which stops the proceedings.¹

The creditor must then have the objection set aside. If the creditor holds an enforceable judgment or arbitral award, the court grants definitive setting aside (definitive Rechtsöffnung), and the proceedings continue. If the creditor holds only a written acknowledgement of debt, the court may grant provisional setting aside, after which the debtor has twenty days to bring an action to establish that the debt does not exist. Without either title the creditor must sue on the merits. The right to have the objection set aside lapses one year after service of the payment order. Once the objection has been set aside, a debtor entered in the commercial register is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, and a notice of bankruptcy may be followed by an application for a bankruptcy decree if the debt remains unpaid twenty days later.²

The low threshold for starting proceedings has a double edge. It allows creditors to put pressure on a debtor quickly and cheaply, and a registered payment order appears in the debt enforcement register, which counterparties and landlords consult. It also allows unfounded payment orders to be used as instruments of harassment, a practice that led the legislature to give debtors a procedure for preventing the disclosure of such entries.³ In international cases the payment order serves a further purpose. It interrupts the limitation period under Swiss law, which makes it a convenient tool for creditors who need to preserve a claim while negotiations continue.⁴

Attachment of assets: the Swiss freezing order

The instrument that has made the SchKG famous among international litigators is the attachment, the Arrest. It allows a creditor to freeze specific assets of the debtor located in Switzerland, typically bank accounts and securities deposits, without prior notice to the debtor. The attachment is granted by the single judge at the place where the assets are located, which in Zurich means the district court. The creditor must show to the standard of plausibility that the claim exists, that one of the grounds of attachment applies and that assets belonging to the debtor are located in Switzerland.⁵

Article 271 SchKG lists six grounds of attachment. Two are of particular importance for foreign creditors. Under the fourth ground a creditor may obtain an attachment against a debtor who does not live in Switzerland if the claim has a sufficient connection with Switzerland or is based on an acknowledgement of debt. Under the sixth ground any creditor holding a definitive enforcement title, such as an enforceable judgment or award, may apply for an attachment.⁶ The sixth ground, introduced in its present form in connection with the revised Lugano Convention, has transformed the practice of enforcing foreign judgments and awards against assets in Switzerland, since it frees the creditor from any need to show a separate Swiss connection.⁷

The Swiss attachment is powerful but not unlimited. Courts refuse applications that amount to fishing expeditions. A creditor must identify the assets with reasonable precision, normally by naming the bank and describing the relationship, and may not simply ask for all assets of the debtor at all banks in Zurich.⁸ The court may require security for the damage the attachment could cause the debtor, although this is rarely demanded where the creditor holds an enforceable judgment. The debtor and affected third parties may file an objection within ten days of learning of the attachment. The creditor must validate the attachment within ten days by commencing debt enforcement proceedings or an action on the merits, failing which the attachment lapses. Banks are obliged to disclose information about the attached assets only once the objection period has expired or the objection has been finally decided. Court fees for the attachment order are modest, ranging between CHF 40 and CHF 4,000 according to the value of the assets.⁹

A decision of the Federal Supreme Court of 29 January 2026 illustrates the limits of the instrument where the debtor is a foreign state. The court confirmed that assets of a foreign state can be attached only if the state acted in a private capacity, if the claim has a sufficient connection with Swiss territory and if the assets do not serve sovereign purposes. It rejected the argument that the requirement of a sufficient connection was incompatible with Article 47 of the Lugano Convention, holding that the conditions of protective measures remain governed by domestic law.¹⁰ For creditors of states and state-owned entities, a group that includes many award creditors in investment and commodity disputes, the decision confirms that Zurich bank accounts are not an easy target.

Relevance for asset recovery

In asset recovery the attachment is often the first step in a coordinated strategy. A creditor with a judgment from London, New York or Singapore, or with an award from a seat anywhere in the world, can freeze Zurich bank accounts within days and then pursue recognition and enforcement in the Swiss validation proceedings. Where the creditor lacks a title but can show a claim with a Swiss connection, the fourth ground allows an attachment before the merits have been decided. The Swiss attachment differs from the English freezing injunction in two important respects. It acts in rem on specific assets located in Switzerland. It also lacks the general disclosure obligation that accompanies English freezing orders, which operate in personam against the debtor worldwide. Creditors therefore often combine Swiss attachment with foreign disclosure orders, with applications under Article 185a PILA in support of foreign arbitrations and, where criminal conduct is suspected, with criminal complaints that open access to the investigative powers of the prosecution authorities. That last route is discussed in the chapters on the prosecution of economic crime and on mutual legal assistance.

Notes

1. HFW, “Guide to Debt Enforcement and Freezing Orders in Switzerland” (William Hold and Alix Bosson, 9 September 2020), https://www.hfw.com/insights/overview-of-debt-enforcement-against-companies-in-switzerland-and-freezing-orders-over-swiss-bank-accounts-2020/. ↩
2. HFW, “Guide to Debt Enforcement and Freezing Orders in Switzerland”, loc. cit. ↩
3. Art. 8a para. 3 lit. d SchKG, inserted by the Federal Act of 16 December 2016, in force since 1 January 2019 (AS 2018 4583), allows the debtor to request that third parties not be informed of a payment order if the creditor does not pursue the proceedings; consolidated text reproduced by lexaris, https://lexaris.de/book/version/documentflat/head/3505408 (version as at 1 July 2024). ↩
4. Code of Obligations (SR 220), Art. 135 no. 2, bilingual edition, https://www.droit-bilingue.ch/de-en/2/22/220-135-148.html: the limitation period is interrupted “by debt enforcement proceedings” (“durch Schuldbetreibung”). ↩
5. Marcel Frey and Urs Feller (Prager Dreifuss), “Attachment of assets and bank accounts under Swiss debt enforcement law”, IFLR, 13 April 2026, https://www.iflr.com/article/2g8fdul9kp5amxkb9143k/sponsored/attachment-of-assets-and-bank-accounts-under-swiss-debt-enforcement-law. ↩
6. Frey and Feller, IFLR, loc. cit. ↩
7. Urs Boller, “Arrest gestützt auf ausländische Entscheide: Erste Erfahrungen mit dem neuen Arrestrecht”, MLL, https://mll-legal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/arrest_gestuetzt_auf_auslaendische_entscheide.pdf: Art. 271 para. 1 no. 6 SchKG entered into force on 1 January 2011 together with the revised Lugano Convention, applies to any definitive title for setting aside an objection and does not require a domestic connection (Binnenbeziehung). ↩
8. Frey and Feller, IFLR, loc. cit. (courts “will curtail ‘fishing expeditions’”). ↩
9. Frey and Feller, IFLR, loc. cit. (Arts. 273, 278 and 279 SchKG; timing of bank disclosure; court fees). ↩
10. Centre de droit bancaire et financier (CDBF), University of Geneva, “Attachment DEBA / LC: The Federal Court refuses to relax the requirements”, https://cdbf.ch/en/1459/, discussing Federal Supreme Court judgment 5A_617/2025 of 29 January 2026. ↩

For general information only. This article does not constitute legal or tax advice, does not replace advice on an individual case and creates no lawyer-client relationship. It reflects the legal position as of September 2025.