Switzerland has enacted Article 29d of its private international law framework, introducing a domestic anti-suit shield that mirrors the protection established at EU level by Council Regulation (EU) 2026/506 of 23 April 2026. The measure is designed to protect companies and individuals from abusive litigation initiated in Russian courts in breach of valid jurisdiction or arbitration clauses. Any Swiss-based entity with contractual ties to Russian counterparties should assess its exposure without delay.
What Changed and Why It Matters
On 23 April 2026, the European Union adopted Council Regulation (EU) 2026/506, which introduced formal anti-suit protection for EU persons against sanctioned Russian entities or individuals who bring proceedings in Russian courts in violation of pre-agreed jurisdiction or arbitration clauses. Switzerland, maintaining its long-standing practice of aligning key procedural safeguards with EU developments while preserving its independent legal framework, adopted a parallel provision designated as Article 29d within its domestic rules on private international law.
The practical significance cannot be overstated. Russian courts have, in a number of documented cases, accepted jurisdiction over disputes despite exclusive jurisdiction agreements or seated arbitration clauses pointing to non-Russian forums. The result for creditors and counterparties has been parallel proceedings, asset-freezing orders, and default judgments rendered in absentia. Article 29d provides Swiss parties with a direct legal instrument to resist recognition of such judgments and, where procedurally available, to seek injunctive relief before Swiss courts.
For a deeper look at how the underlying Russian procedural mechanism has been used to trap foreign creditors, see our analysis of Russia's Article 248 APC trap for foreign creditors.
Who Is Affected in Switzerland
The new provision is directly relevant to a wide range of parties operating in or through Switzerland:
- Trading companies and commodity firms with outstanding contracts governed by Swiss law or providing for Swiss or international arbitration;
- Banks, asset managers and funds subject to FINMA oversight that hold legacy receivables or credit exposures to Russian counterparties;
- Holding structures and SPVs registered in the Handelsregister with Russian-linked subsidiaries or shareholders;
- Exporters and service providers carrying unpaid invoices or engaged in debt collection efforts against Russian obligors;
- Creditors pursuing enforcement of judgment obtained outside Russia who face a countervailing Russian judgment as a blocking instrument.
If your entity falls into any of these categories, the existence of a Russian court proceeding – even one you were never formally notified of – may already be affecting the enforceability of your claims and the safety of assets linked to those disputes.
Key Thresholds and Timelines
The specific domestic thresholds and procedural deadlines applicable under Article 29d are subject to national implementation rules, details of which are pending full publication of the Swiss implementing guidance. That said, several points are already clear from the adopted framework:
- The protection applies where the Russian proceedings were commenced in breach of a contractual clause conferring jurisdiction on a Swiss court, a recognised foreign court, or an arbitral tribunal;
- The shield covers both recognition and enforcement: a Swiss court or enforcement authority operating under the SchKG (Federal Act on Debt Collection and Bankruptcy) may decline to give effect to a Russian judgment that falls within the scope of Article 29d;
- Parties relying on the shield must be prepared to demonstrate the existence and validity of the overriding clause – this requires contemporaneous documentary evidence, not reconstruction after the fact;
- Late payment interest, payment order procedures, and asset freezing applications remain available under ordinary Swiss procedural law alongside the Article 29d mechanism; they are not displaced by it.
Given that timelines for objecting to foreign judgments within Swiss enforcement proceedings can be short, early action is strongly advisable. We recommend not waiting for a formal demand or a Bundesgericht ruling before reviewing your exposure.
Immediate Action Items for International Companies
Based on the framework as adopted, the following steps should be considered by any entity with Swiss nexus and Russian-counterparty exposure:
- Audit existing contracts for the presence and enforceability of jurisdiction and arbitration clauses governing disputes with Russian parties; identify any gaps or ambiguities before they are exploited.
- Check for Russian proceedings already initiated or threatened; absence of formal service does not preclude a default judgment being obtained and later used as a blocking instrument in third-country enforcement.
- Secure documentary evidence of all contractual arrangements, payment histories, and prior correspondence with Russian counterparties; this will be essential in any Swiss court application invoking Article 29d.
- Review asset positions that could be subject to a pre-emptive freezing order sought by a Russian counterparty in a jurisdiction willing to enforce Russian judgments; consider whether precautionary attachment under Swiss law is appropriate on your side.
- Engage Swiss counsel promptly if an unpaid invoice, a disputed payment order, or an enforcement of judgment proceeding is already in progress; the interaction between Article 29d and existing SchKG procedures requires careful navigation.
If your situation involves insolvency or restructuring risk on the Russian counterparty's side, our bankruptcy and restructuring practice in Switzerland can assist in assessing the broader implications for your claims.
How Swiss Courts and Enforcement Authorities Are Likely to Respond
Swiss courts have a well-established tradition of respecting party autonomy in jurisdiction and arbitration agreements. Article 29d provides a more explicit statutory basis for what Swiss courts could already achieve through the public policy exception and general private international law principles. The new provision, however, removes the need to argue on a case-by-case basis: it creates a direct rule applicable where the Russian proceeding was brought in breach of a valid clause.
In practical enforcement terms, a creditor pursuing debt collection in Switzerland against a Russian-linked debtor who presents a Russian default judgment as a defence will now be able to invoke Article 29d directly before the relevant cantonal enforcement authority or before the Bundesgericht on appeal. This matters because the evidentiary burden and procedural sequence differ from a general public policy challenge. Companies should ensure their Swiss lawyer Switzerland counsel is familiar with both the new provision and its interaction with ordinary SchKG enforcement mechanics.
Our debt recovery practice in Switzerland covers the full range of payment order, enforcement of judgment, and asset freezing procedures, and can advise on how Article 29d integrates with each of these tools.
Next Steps
Article 29d is a targeted but significant development. Its usefulness depends entirely on whether affected parties identify their exposure early enough to take advantage of it. Companies that delay – whether because no formal demand has yet arrived from the Russian side or because the Russian proceeding appears dormant – risk finding themselves in a worse procedural position when matters escalate.
If you are uncertain whether your contracts, receivables, or enforcement proceedings in Switzerland may be affected by Article 29d or by related Russian procedural tactics, we welcome the opportunity to discuss your situation. Please write to us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page to arrange a consultation.
For companies already engaged in active proceedings or facing an imminent demand, time is often the critical variable. We encourage you to reach out to info@ferrazwhitmore.com at the earliest opportunity so that the appropriate steps can be assessed and, where necessary, implemented without delay.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.