Search terms: Litigation, Switzerland
Including: Judicial Structure; Commercial Courts; Court Procedure; Appeals to Swiss Federal Court.
The Zurich Court of Appeal has rejected the concept of witness examinations conducted by the parties' legal counsel. Consequently, Swiss courts assume that if a witness has been contacted and interrogated prior to the proceedings by counsel, resulting in a written witness statement, the witness lacks credibility and the subsequent testimony before the competent Swiss judges cannot be taken into account.
Can a criminal court entertain a civil action, as a so-called 'adjoining procedure', arising from the same facts? The Supreme Court recently adopted a creative solution to this question in an international case involving a foreign defendant who was domiciled in Lithuania and sentenced for crimes which were committed in Switzerland, but not in the district of the sentencing district court.
The Federal Supreme Court has stated that parties are entitled contractually to waive their right to bring any federal appeal against a cantonal court decision, particularly when a choice of jurisdiction concluded between foreign parties describes the first instance judgment as final. As a result of the decision, forum selection clauses must be carefully reviewed and drafted.
The new Swiss Federal Supreme Court Act sets forth revised regulations governing access to and proceedings before the Swiss Supreme Court. The act, which replaces the Federal Judicial Organization Act, forms part of a larger, more comprehensive overhaul of the Swiss judicial system.
The Swiss Supreme Court recently denied a request for judicial assistance from the New York Supreme Court seeking to review certain documents and question witnesses in connection with divorce proceedings pending in New York. The tribunal upheld a lower court decision that Switzerland was not required to execute the request as it fell under a reservation to Article 23 of the Hague Convention.
In a case that is still pending, the Zurich courts are considering a request for the enforcement of three arbitral awards - more specifically, of three state court judgments that were rendered on appeal against the awards. The question before the courts is whether the original awards or the appeal judgments are the object of the enforcement proceeding.