The debt collection procedure in Switzerland

The procedure for recovering debts of money under Swiss law is unusual in that forced execution is possible based simply on claims from the alleged creditor, without the need to present documentary evidence.

Consequently, the alleged creditor does not need to be in possession of any specific title (civil judgment, arbitration award, administrative decision or acknowledgement of debt, either signed by the debtor or resulting from a notarized deed) to begin a debt collection procedure.

Conversely, even with incontestable documentary evidence, the creditor has to go through the preliminary step of the debt recovery process, because the only enforceable title available to seize the assets or have the debtor declared bankrupt is an enforceable summons to pay [commandement de payer en force]. No other document is acceptable (except in special cases).

Consequently, the debtor can immediately freeze the process instituted by the creditor by filing an objection to the summons to pay [opposition au commandement de payer]. The creditor will then have to lift the objection [lever l’opposition] in order to be able to continue the process.

Back to index

II. Competent authorities

Forced execution is a state function, similar on certain levels to police activities.

The Swiss system for allocating competence for forced execution is very complicated.

In general, debt collection falls to specialised administrative authorities, which are the debt collection and bankruptcy authorities in each Canton – the Debt Collection Office [Office des poursuites] and the Bankruptcy Office [Office des faillites]. Appeals against decisions by these authorities can be submitted to the supervisory authority [autorité de surveillance] (art. 17 DEBA).

However, in certain cases, forced execution is enforced not by the administrative authorities but by the civil courts.

In this respect, it is important to distinguish between three different situations:

A judge sometimes replaces the administrative authorities because the decision to be made is highly important and has weighty consequences for the parties. A civil judge pronounces a decision rather than a judgement, and acts as an enforcement body. This is the case, for example, for the declaration of bankruptcy. Here, the judge’s jurisdiction is mandatory (based on Swiss national law) and cannot be altered or modified by the parties.
The Swiss judge can be tasked with settling procedural issues. Here, the matter is submitted to the Swiss judge because one party has opposed the continuation of the enforcement by raising an issue. Certain judgments are pure procedural enforcement law matters (for example the definitive lifting of the objection [mainlevée définitive]) and others relate to substantive enforcement law issues (for example the provisional lifting of the objection [mainlevée provisoire]). The judge’s jurisdiction here is also mandatory and founded in Swiss national law, subject to international agreements to the contrary (for example the Lugano Convention of 30 September 2007, SR 0.275.12).
Finally, the judge is also called on to settle proceedings on the merits. These issues do not relate to the law on forced execution, but are simply raised as part of an ongoing procedure to settle a substantive law dispute. Due to the uncertainty caused, the enforcement cannot continue until the matter is settled. This is a normal procedure under standard law. The most common cases are the action for recognition of debt [action en reconnaissance de dette] (art. 79 DEBA) and the action for discharge from debt [action en libération de dette] (art. 83 DEBA). Here the judge’s competence is determined based on the will of the contracting parties (choice of court clause for instance) as well as the international and national law applicable to the dispute.

These distinctions are sometimes complicated, and have consequences on the place of jurisdiction and enforcement [fors] and the effect of decisions.

Therefore, procedures relating only to substantive law (proceedings on the merits) must be brought before the place of jurisdiction [for ordinaire] provided for under ordinary law. For example, if the parties have agreed on an arbitration clause, the Swiss state judge will not have jurisdiction to decide whether the debt is valid on the merits. The arbitration decision will have the authority of res judicata, and will be binding on the judge and the Swiss administrative enforcement authorities.

However, procedures which raise issues relating to forced execution law must be brought in the place of enforcement [for de la poursuite] provided for by mandatory Swiss law. Consequently, an arbitration court could not rule on a request for a definitive lifting of the objection [mainlevée définitive] or a provisional lifting of the objection [mainlevée provisoire] even if there was an arbitration clause in the contract. These decisions will be final and binding on the current enforcement procedure only.

Back to index

III. The preliminary debt recovery process

The standard way of instituting a debt collection process is via the preliminary procedure [procédure préalable].

This is the phase of the procedure situated between the debt collection request [réquisition de poursuite] (art. 67 DEBA) and the request for continuation [réquisition de continuer la poursuite] (art. 88 DEBA).

This phase is governed by two main principles, and it is important to note that the Debt Collection Office [Office des poursuites] carries out the enforcement actions – the creditor can neither carry them out nor serve notice of them:

The burden of initiative: The procedure does not move forward automatically. Action from the creditor is required at each stage. At the initial stage, this action is simply a declaration of intention addressed to the Debt Collection Office [Office des poursuites].
The burden of reaction: The debtor can block the procedure by raising an objection [opposition]. This is also limited to a simple declaration of intention which will require the creditor to demonstrate the validity of the claim to the state judge or the arbitration court. If no action is taken by the debtor, the procedure continues automatically.

*****

Before describing the stages of the procedure in detail, three important elements must be considered:

Firstly, the debt collection procedure is almost always started in the debtor’s place of domicile/registered office. This is what is referred to as the place of enforcement [for de la poursuite] (art. 46ss DEBA). As mentioned before, this place of enforcement should be distinguished from the place of jurisdiction [for judiciaire] which determines the judge’s competence for the material judicial decisions. Consequently, special attention should be paid to this point and to determining exactly what action must be instituted and where.

Secondly, it is essential that the creditor with its domicile or seat abroad should elect domicile at the office of a professional representative with offices in Switzerland. Failing election of domicile in Switzerland, the processes are deemed notified to the headquarters of the Debt Collection Office [Offices des poursuites] which may have consequences on time bars. Each process in the procedure must be commenced within a precise time limit otherwise the procedure is cancelled.

Finally, it is for the creditor taking action to advance the costs generated by the procedure. The fees for the procedure are set by the Fees Ordinance of the Swiss Federal Act on Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy (FODEBA) [Ordonnance sur les émoluments perçus en application de la loi fédérale sur la poursuite pour dettes et la faillite, OELP] of 23 September 1996 (SR 281.35).

The fee for drafting a summons to pay [commandement de payer] depends on the value of the debt. For example, the fee is CHF90 for debts between CHF10,000 and CHF100,000 and CHF190 for debts between CHF100,001 and CHF1,000,000 (art. 16 FODEBA). The fee for each attempted notification is CHF 7. If necessary, the police may be instructed to serve the summons to pay [commandement de payer] on a debtor who is attempting to evade enforcement, which incurs additional costs. As a last resort, notification may be made by publication in the Swiss Official Gazette of Commerce (SOGC) [Feuille officielle du commerce, FOSC] and in the cantonal official gazettes [FAO].

As regards proceedings to dismiss a debtor’s objection [procédure de mainlevée de l’opposition], the fees to be advanced are between CHF50 and CHF300 for a claim with a value of CHF1,000 to CHF10,000; CHF60 and CHF500 for a claim with a value of CHF10,001 to CHF100,000; CHF70 and CHF2,000 for a claim with a value of CHF100,001 to CHF10,00,000 and CHF500 and CHF4,000 for a claim above this value (art. 48 FODEBA).

The fees advanced by the creditor enforcing the debt are added to the debt. The creditor will be reimbursed for them when the monies collected are distributed.

*****

The debt collection procedure is instituted when a debt collection request [réquisition de poursuite] is submitted (generally as a form sent by the creditor) to the Debt Collection Office [Office des poursuites] located at the place of enforcement [for de la poursuite] (art. 46ss DEBA).

This debt collection request [réquisition de poursuite] must include certain information such as the debtor’s name and address, the value of and reason for the debt, and the interest due. The value of the debt must be given in Swiss Francs even if it is actually expressed in a foreign currency (art. 67 al. 1 ch. 3 DEBA).

It is important to note that the Debt Collection Office [Office des poursuites] will not examine the validity of the debt alleged by the creditor, only the state judge or an arbitration court has this prerogative.

Sending a debt collection request [réquisition de poursuite] has a dual effect:

It obliges the Debt Collection Office [Office des poursuites] to record the debt in the Debt Collection Register [Registre des poursuites] (art. 8 DEBA). If the debtor is declared insolvent (for example, if several debts are being recovered against him/her), the creditor will be informed immediately and will become a party to the liquidation procedure (art. 233 DEBA).
In this case, the time bar for the debt is interrupted (art. 135 CO of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO) [Code des obligations suisse, CO] of 30^th of March 1911 (SR 220)). Once the inscription has been interrupted, each new enforcement action taken by the Debt Collection Office [Office des poursuites] or the parties renews the interruption (art. 138 al. 2 CO; ATF 81 II 135).

Sending a debt collection request [réquisition de poursuite] does not constitute an illegal attack on the debtor’s personal rights because it is justified by the law and in the creditor’s overriding interest (art. 28 of the Swiss Civil Code (CC) [Code civil suisse, CC] of 10 December 1907, SR 210). Abuse of law by the creditor is limited primarily to cases where the aim of the enforcement is to ruin the debtor’s good reputation and where the debt is obviously unfounded (see below Section V).

The Debt Collection Office [Office des poursuites] will then notify a summons to pay [commandement de payer] to the debtor summoning him/her to pay the sum indicated in the request within 20 days (art. 69 DEBA).

The time limit for notifying the summons to pay [commandement de payer] varies according to the Canton, but is usually one or two months.

In general, procedures on the merits are carried out in parallel with the initial stages of the debt recovery procedure so that the creditor does not have to wait for notice of the summons to pay [commandement de payer] to be served following the judgement confirming the existence of the debt.

The debtor has then three possibilities: either he/she pays the full amount due with interest within the time limit and the procedure is suspended and then struck off the records at the creditor’s request; or he/she does nothing and the creditor will be able to submit a request for continuation [réquisition de continuer la poursuite] after a waiting period of 20 days (art. 88 DEBA); or finally the debtor files an objection notice [opposition au commandement de payer] within 10 days of the notification.

Note: When a debt collection request [requisition de poursuite] is filed and a summons to [commandement de payer] is served on the debtor, the debtor may only settle the debt by paying through the Debt Collection Office [Office des poursuite], otherwise they risk having to pay twice (Swiss Federal Supreme Court decision ATF 114 III 49). Indeed, payment made directly to the creditor does not interrupt the debt collection proceedings.

The fact that the debtor does not file an objection does not mean that he/she accepts the debt.

If the debtor files an objection notice [opposition au commandement de payer] (there is no specific format for this, no reason need be given, and the objection may be partial or complete), the creditor is required to obtain a court order stating that the debtor owes the debt [mainlevée de l’opposition].

If the creditor does not institute proceedings to dismiss the debtor’s objection [mainlevée de l’opposition] within one year of notice of the summons to pay [commandement de payer] being served, the enforcement will lapse (art. 88 DEBA).

The creditor can lift the opposition through three different legal channels:

If the creditor holds a final and binding judgment (Swiss or foreign), or a title considered equivalent – such as a final arbitral award, a final decision of Swiss administrative authorities (such as a tax assessment), or a court-approved settlement (such as a divorce agreement) – he may file a request for a definitive lifting of the objection [mainlevée définitive] at the place of enforcement [for de la poursuite] (art. 80 DEBA).

This procedure is simple, rapid and allows the debt collection procedure to be continued within a very short time. The debtor’s objections are, in fact, very limited. He must provide documentary proof that the debt has been extinguished, that he has obtained a stay of payment after the judgment, or that the claim is time-barred (Swiss Federal Supreme Court decision 4A_637/2023 of 4 December 2024). If the judgement or the arbitration award was rendered abroad, a preliminary exequatur procedure may be necessary for the judgement to be enforceable in Switzerland.
If the creditor has a recognition/acknowledgment of debt [reconnaissance de dette], he may file an application to the Swiss Court to obtain a judgment lifting the objection (without assessing the merits of the claim) [mainlevée provisoire] from the judge of the place of enforcement [for de la poursuite] (art. 82 DEBA).

This is also a simplified procedure and the debtor’s objections are limited. The chances of success are more uncertain than in the case of a definitive lifting of the objection [mainlevée definitive] since they depend on the documents presented and the judge’s appreciation.
The notion of recognition of debt [reconnaissance de dette] is not specifically defined in the law. It may consist of one formal document or of a combination of several documents. Case law has defined an acknowledgment of debt [reconnaissance de dette] as a private or authenticated deed, signed by the debtor or his representative, which reflects his unconditional and unreserved intention to pay the creditor a specified, or easily determinable and due, sum of money (Swiss Federal Supreme Court decision 4A_676/2024 of 9 July 2025).
In particular, it has been held that a bank statement constitutes a recognition of debt.
The fact that the document was drafted by the creditor (or his representative) is irrelevant; it is sufficient that it bears the signature of the debtor or his representative. An invoice signed by the debtor without reservation or condition satisfies the requirements of article 82 al. 1 DEBA, and it does not matter whether the words “approved” appear next to the signature (Swiss Federal Supreme Court decision 5A_439/2023 of 23 November 2023).
Generally, a bilateral contract (contract of sale, rental contract, employment contract, mandate, etc.) can be considered as a recognition of debt under certain conditions (Swiss Federal Supreme Court decision ATF 145 III 20). Therefore a contract signed by the debtor and indicating the amount due by the latter can serve as a basis to request a provisional mainlevée [mainlevée provisoire], if the creditor can present documents in proof (i) that it has fulfilled its obligations stemming from the contract, (ii) that the sum owed by the debtor is payable, and (iii) that any conditions precedent affecting the contract have been realized. Certain types of contracts require additional conditions.
When interpreting the recognition of debt [reconnaissance de dette], the judge deciding on the request for provisional lifting of the objection [mainlevée provisoire] must take into account only the elements intrinsic to that document, to the exclusion of extrinsic elements that fall outside his scope of review. If the meaning or interpretation of the document relied upon is doubtful, provisional lifting of the objection [mainlevée provisoire] will be denied.
The provisional lifting of the objection procedure [mainlevée provisoire] is a documentary procedure, the purpose of which is not to establish the actual existence of the debt being enforced, but the existence of an enforceable title. The judge of provisional relief [mainlevée provisoire] examines only the probative value of the acknowledgment of debt [reconnaissance de dette] submitted by the creditor and its formal nature – and not the validity of the debt – and grants it enforceability if the debtor does not immediately make his release grounds plausible.
Indeed, pursuant to article 82 al. 2 DEBA, the debtor may defeat the provisional lifting of the objection [mainlevée provisoire] by immediately making his release from the debt plausible. He may rely on all civil-law defenses – exceptions or objections – that undermine the recognition of debt [reconnaissance de dette], for example a formal defect affecting his obligation. An allegation is made plausible when the judge forms the impression, on the basis of objective elements, that the facts are as described; this does not exclude other possibilities. However, the judge does not need to be convinced that the facts actually occurred as presented.
The lifting of the objection procedure, whether provisional [mainlevée provisoire] or definitive [mainlevée definitive], is an ancillary incident of the debt-enforcement process. The decision granting or denying the provisional lifting of the objection [mainlevée provisoire] is a pure enforcement decision, whose sole purpose is to determine whether the enforcement proceedings may continue or whether the creditor must instead bring an ordinary civil action. In other words, the judgement is not a judgement on the merits regarding the existence of the debt and the exception of res judicata does not apply. Consequently, the judge’s decision to lift the objection does not deny the parties the right to bring the dispute back to court before the ordinary judge (art. 83 al. 2 DEBA).
If the provisional lifting of the objection [mainlevée provisoire] is granted, the debtor must, within 20 days, institute action for discharge/release from debt [action en libération de dette] at the place of enforcement [for de la poursuite] or the place of jurisdiction [for judiciaire].
This is a judicial action subject to the ordinary procedure (art. 219 et seq. CPC) or, if the value in dispute does not exceed CHF 30,000, to the simplified procedure (art. 243 al. 1 CPC). The action for release from the debt under article 83 al. 2 DEBA is a negative declaratory action, the purpose of which is to establish that the debt pursued in enforcement either does not exist or is not yet due. It falls within substantive law, and the resulting judgment is this time endowed with res judicata effect.
There is thus a reversal in the burden of proof. It is now up to the debtor to take the lead and prove that the debt does not exist. The action for discharge from debt [action en libération de dette] can be brought before an arbitration court, if the parties have signed an arbitration clause.
Note that the 20-day period to file an action for release from the debt [action en libération de dette] begins upon notification to the debtor of the operative part of the order granting the provisional lifting of the objection [mainlevée provisoire], and not from the notification of the reasoned decision (Swiss Federal Supreme Court decision ATF 150 III 400).
If no action for discharge from debt [action en libération de dette] is taken within the prescribed time period, the provisional lifting of the objection [mainlevée provisoire] becomes final (art. 83 DEBA), meaning that the creditor can submit a request for continuation [requête en continuation de la poursuite] (art. 88 DEBA).
If the judge discharges the debtor from the debt, the enforcement procedure stops and it becomes impossible to bring any further procedure for the same debt (res judicata).
If the judge rejects the debtor’s request, the creditor can submit a request for continuation [requête en continuation de la poursuite] (art. 88 LP) and the judgement is considered as a definitive lifting of the objection [mainlevée définitive].
The debtor then has only limited remedies available to escape his creditor, such as an action for annulment of the enforcement proceedings [action en annulation de la poursuite] under the summary procedure if he proves by documentary evidence that the debt has been extinguished in principal, interest and costs, or an action for suspension of the enforcement proceedings [action en suspension de la poursuite] if he proves by documentary evidence that the creditor has granted him a grace period (art. 85 DEBA). He may also, in certain cases (for example, if the action for release from the debt was declared inadmissible for failure to comply with the 20-day time limit under art. 83 al. 2 DEBA), bring an action for annulment of the enforcement proceedings [action en annulation de la poursuite] under the ordinary or simplified procedure (Art. 85a DEBA).

Finally, if the creditor has no titles [titres de mainlevée définitive ou provisoire], he must sue on the merits by filing an action for recognition of debt [action en reconnaissance de dette] before the judge of the place of jurisdiction [for judiciaire]. The ordinary procedure is applicable. If the debt falls under a special jurisdiction (labour court, leases and rents tribunal, admiralty jurisdiction or arbitration tribunal), the action must be brought before this jurisdiction. When the ruling has been rendered, it then needs to be recognised in Switzerland (exequatur procedure) and a request needs to be filed for a definitive lifting of the objection [mainlevée définitive] at the place of enforcement [for de la poursuite]. Normally just one application is made to request both the definitive lifting of the objection [mainlevée definitive] and the exequatur

After the creditor has dismissed the debtor’s objection [mainlevée de l’opposition], the debt collection procedure only continues if the creditor submits a request for continuation [réquisition de continuer la poursuite].

To summarize, the creditor may request the Debt Collection Office to continue the debt collection procedure when:

1) The debtor has not filed an objection notice [opposition au commandement de payer];

2) The creditor has definitively lifted of the objection [mainlevée définitive] (channel 1);

3) The creditor has obtained the provisional lifting of the objection [mainlevée provisoire] and the debtor has not filed an action for discharge from debt [action en libération de dette] (channel 2);

4) The debtor’s request for discharge from debt [action en libération de dette] has been dismissed (channel 2);

5) The creditor has successfully filed an action for recognition of debt [action en reconnaissance de dette] (channel 3).

The creditor can once again convert a debt expressed in a foreign currency into Swiss currency, thereby adjusting the exchange rate.

The request for continuation [réquisition de continuer la poursuite] forces the Debt Collection Office [Office des poursuites] to send a bankruptcy warning [commination de faillite] (art 159 DEBA) or a seizure notice [avis de saisie] to the debtor (art. 90 DEBA).

The request to continue the enforcement proceedings [réquisition de continuer la poursuite] thereby puts an end to the preliminary phase of the debt collection procedure and opens the way to bankruptcy [faillite] or seizure [saisie], depending on whether the debtor is registered in the Commercial Register or not (arts. 39 et seq. DEBA).

Back to index

IV. Bankruptcy of the debtor or seizure of his assets

In debt collection proceedings, the types of recovery differ: legal entities (company limited by shares, limited liability company, association, foundation, etc.), proprietors of a sole proprietorship and unlimited-liability organs (partners in a general partnership, unlimitedly liable partner in a limited partnership, etc.) registered in the Commercial Register are subject to enforcement by way of bankruptcy [faillite], all other debtors to enforcement by way of seizure [saisie].

Back to index

A) Enforcement by way of bankruptcy [faillite]

The bankruptcy of a business is generally initiated by the creditor, according to the preliminary procedure detailed above. But the board of directors of a company, or even the auditor, may also have an obligation to inform the court in the event of over-indebtedness, namely when the value of the company’s assets no longer covers the amount of its debts (see our page on the incorporation of a company in Switzerland for further details).

Other cases of bankruptcy exist – for example when the company no longer has all the organs required by law or one of those organs is not constituted in accordance with legal prescriptions (art. 731b CO).

From the creditor’s side, following the request to continue enforcement [réquisition de continuer la poursuite], the Debt Collection Office [Office des poursuites] sends the debtor subject to bankruptcy a bankruptcy warning [commination de faillite] informing him that if he does not pay within a final deadline of 20 days, the creditor may apply to the court for the bankruptcy of the company in the jurisdiction of the enforcement.

Upon the creditor’s application, the competent court issues a bankruptcy judgment.

The judgment is communicated to the Bankruptcy Office [Office des faillites], published in the Swiss Official Gazette of Commerce (SOGC) and notified to known creditors, triggering the legal deadlines for the filing of debts. From that moment, the debtor is deprived of his assets – which now form the bankruptcy estate [masse en faillite] – cannot deal with them, and all individual debt collection proceedings are suspended. Debts not yet due become immediately enforceable, and interest ceases to run on claims not secured by pledge.

The Bankruptcy Office [Office des faillites] administers the entire procedure: it draws up an inventory of assets and liabilities, seals the assets, verifies third-party rights, and assesses the liquidation value of the assets. A first creditors’ meeting [première assemblée des créanciers] is then convened to determine the mode of liquidation – summary or ordinary – to appoint, if required, a special administration, and to set the initial guidelines for the realisation of the assets. During the procedure, the bankruptcy administration may manage the debtor’s ongoing business, continue temporarily the operation of the enterprise or terminate current contracts.

All bankruptcies in Switzerland include a liquidation phase, described in arts. 221 et seq. DEBA. Two main types of procedures exist: summary liquidation [liquidation sommaire] and ordinary liquidation [liquidation ordinaire], which must, in principle, be completed within one year after the opening of bankruptcy.

Summary liquidation [liquidation sommaire], the more common form, applies to simple cases or when the company has no significant assets. It is proposed by the Bankruptcy Office [Office des faillites] to the court and allows for a rapid and efficient treatment. The Bankruptcy Office [Office des faillites] prepares the inventory, publishes a call to creditors inviting them to submit their claims [appel des créanciers], typically within one month, then establishes a schedule of claims allocating and classifying admitted debts according to their legal rank [état de collocation]. The schedule of claims [état de collocation] sorts the debts into the ranks provided by law:

First rank: wage debts for the last six months, family maintenance debts and certain social insurance debts.

Second rank: social security contributions not included in the first rank, mandatory insurance premiums and other preferential debts.

Third rank: all other unsecured debts (chirographary).

Secured debts with pledge are treated separately and benefit from a preferential right to the proceeds of the realisation of the pledged asset. Within the same rank, distribution is made pro rata according to each debt’s share.

The assets are then realised (auction or private sale), and the proceeds are distributed in accordance with the priority order, after payment of bankruptcy costs. Creditors not fully paid receive a certificate of unpaid debts [acte de défaut de biens], and the closure is subject to a judgment published leading to the deletion of the company from the Commercial Register.

Ordinary liquidation, rarer, concerns major bankruptcies. It comprises two creditors’ meetings [assemblées des créanciers], which provide enhanced oversight of the procedure. These meetings decide in particular on the continued operation of the business, private sales, appointment of a special administration or even constitution of a supervisory commission. This mode of liquidation aims at greater transparency and active participation of creditors in the management of the bankruptcy.

Swiss law also provides special procedures for certain entities (banks, insurance companies) under federal supervision, as well as alternative mechanisms such as a composition moratorium [procédure de sursis concordataire], allowing for a creditor agreement before or after bankruptcy. Preventive measures, such as a stay of bankruptcy [ajournement de la faillite], finally allow to avoid liquidation where a restructuring remains possible.

Back to index

B) Personal bankruptcy [faillite personnelle]

In Switzerland, any over-indebted individual, whether registered in the Commercial Register or not, may declare his insolvency before the competent court pursuant to article 191 DEBA. Where any possibility of an amicable arrangement with creditors is excluded, the court may open personal bankruptcy proceedings. This results in the liquidation of all the debtor’s seizable assets, including, where applicable, his home, in order to partially satisfy the creditors.

Personal bankruptcy has the immediate effect of suspending all ongoing enforcement and seizure proceedings, including wage attachments. It therefore provides the debtor with enhanced legal protection and temporary financial relief, allowing him to restore budgetary balance. However, it does not discharge the debts: natural persons may still be pursued. Creditors receive a certificate of unpaid debts [acte de défaut de biens], enabling them to claim the remaining balance should the debtor’s financial situation improve. Claims evidenced by such certificate are subject to a twenty-year limitation period (art. 149a al. 1 DEBA).

For personal bankruptcy to be granted, several cumulative conditions must be met:

the debtor must prove his actual over-indebtedness;
he must demonstrate that any possibility of amicable debt settlement under articles 333 et seq. DEBA is excluded;
he must present a balanced future budget, ensuring he can meet his ongoing obligations, in particular tax obligations, without incurring new debts;
lastly, he must provide an advance on costs of approximately CHF 4,000, covering procedural costs, intervention of the bankruptcy Office [Office des faillites] and mandatory publications in the SOGC [FOSC] and cantonal official gazettes [FAO].

Personal bankruptcy is therefore not a debt-relief mechanism, but an exceptional restructuring procedure allowing an honest but overwhelmed debtor to restart on a sound financial basis within the legal framework. However, courts increasingly reject such requests.

Indeed, pursuant to article 230 al. 1 DEBA, where it appears likely that the estate will not even cover the costs of summary liquidation [liquidation sommaire], the judge who ordered the bankruptcy shall suspend the proceedings at the request of the bankruptcy Office [Office des faillites]. In such case, the bankruptcy is closed without issuing a certificate of unpaid debts [acte de défaut de biens]; individual enforcement proceedings revive (art. 230 al. 4 DEBA) and continue by way of seizure, and the debtor may not rely on the defence of lack of subsequent improvement in his financial situation under article 265 DEBA [retour à meilleure fortune].

Moreover, according to the Federal Supreme Court (ATF 133 III 614), “Article 191 DEBA remains an insolvency procedure, the purpose of which is to distribute the debtor’s assets fairly among all creditors. Anyone who voluntarily petitions for his own bankruptcy must have some assets to surrender to his creditors. Admittedly, the debtor derives some protection from this, since he may invoke the absence of subsequent financial improvement, thus regaining the possibility of living according to his circumstances without being reduced to the bare minimum. However, by article 191 DEBA, the legislature did not intend, and did not introduce, a debt-relief procedure for private individuals to address the problem of over-indebtedness of the most insolvent debtors, who have no assets and not even the means to advance procedural costs.”

The Federal Supreme Court has thus held abusive (i) a petition for personal bankruptcy filed by a debtor who no longer has any assets to distribute among creditors (Judgments 5A_915/2014 of 14 January 2015 and 5A_78/2016 of 14 March 2016), and (ii) an attempt to terminate an attachment of wages for the benefit of a single pursuing creditor, even when the debtor still possessed certain assets (ATF 145 III 26).

Accordingly, the route of personal bankruptcy remains very restrictive.

Back to index

C) Enforcement by way of seizure [saisie]

If the debtor is pursued by way of seizure, the Debt Collection Office [Office des poursuites] sends him a notice of seizure [avis de saisie], indicating the date and place of the seizure.

The debtor must attend the seizure or be represented, and must disclose all assets belonging to him, including those not in his possession (for example, items lent to third parties).

All of the debtor’s income (for example, his salary) may be attached, as well as his assets, after deduction of what the Debt Collection Office [Offices des pourusites] considers necessary for him and his family.

To calculate the subsistence minimum [minimum vital] in debt collection procedures, the Debt Collection Office refers to the exemption thresholds issued by the cantons (for example, in Geneva) [normes d’insaisissabilité].

Certain assets – such as essential household items, domestic animals, religious objects, professional tools, AVS/AI pensions, supplementary benefits, and vested benefits in occupational pension schemes not yet due – are generally exempt from seizure (art. 92 DEBA).

After the seizure of assets, the creditor may request their realization by filing a request for sale with the Debt Collection Office [Office de poursuites] within the time limits set out in article 116 al. 1 DEBA, namely:

not earlier than one month and not later than one year for movable property;
not earlier than six months and not later than two years for immovable property.

Realization is generally carried out by public auction. The proceeds are distributed among the seizing creditors after deduction of costs.

It should be noted that the judgment granting the provisional lifting of the objection [mainlevée provisoire] allows the creditor already to request provisional seizure [saisie provisoire] or an inventory [inventaire] (art. 83 al. 1 DEBA).

If, at the end of the enforcement and seizure process, the creditor has not been fully satisfied, he receives a certificate of unpaid debts [acte de défaut de biens] indicating the remaining debt due.

The certificate of unpaid debts [acte de défaut de biens] an acknowledgment of debt [reconnaissance de dette] for the purpose of provisional relief from objection proceedings [mainlevée provisoire].

From the issuance of the certificate of unpaid debts [acte de défaut de biens], interest ceases to accrue. Furthermore, a claim evidenced by a certificate of unpaid debts [acte de défaut de biens] is subject to a 20-year limitation period starting from its issuance. This period may be interrupted, in particular, by new enforcement proceedings [requisition de poursuite] or acknowledgments of debt [reconnaissance de dette].

Back to index

D) The new future debt restructuring procedure

A so-called “second-chance” mechanism is currently under discussion in the Swiss Parliament. Its purpose is to offer new prospects to over-indebted individuals by introducing a three-year debt restructuring procedure.

Under the draft currently being examined, debtors with a regular income would be able to access a simplified composition procedure [procédure concordataire simplifiée], allowing for a partial discharge of their debts if the majority of creditors approve it and the judge considers it appropriate. This agreement would be binding on all creditors, including those who did not consent to it.

Debtors with no realistic prospect of reaching an agreement with their creditors [règlement amiable des dettes] would instead be able to resort to a genuine form of personal bankruptcy. In such case, the debtor would first be required to surrender all available funds to his creditors and demonstrate that he is making efforts to earn a regular income. A debtor who complies with all obligations during this first phase would then benefit from a discharge of the remaining debts. However, if the debtor subsequently receives exceptional income within a certain period after the procedure – for example an inheritance or a gift – such funds would have to be paid to the creditors.

This mechanism seeks to address the criticism that, at present, Swiss debt enforcement law offers no exit route for over-indebted households.

Back to index

V. Abusive debt recovery and debt collection register extracts

As outlined above, Swiss law on forced execution is unusual in that anyone can enforce a debt without any official authority or court being required to verify the debt in advance.

It does happen in rare cases that a person brings a malicious, petty or obviously abusive debt enforcement request [requête de poursuites], with the sole aim of having a non-existent debt recorded on the Debt Collection Register [Registre des poursuites] so that it becomes public knowledge and the debtor’s financial reputation is severely damaged.

In addition, even if a summons to pay [commandement de payer] lapses because the relevant time period has passed, the enforcement remains on the Register for five years. The same applies when a summons to pay [commandement de payer] has been resolved (and so the document is marked “paid”), unless the creditor revokes the enforcement.

Abusive enforcement can give rise to a criminal complaint for coercion under article 181 of the Swiss Criminal Code (CP) of 21 December 1937 (RS 311.0).

As part of the 16 December 2016 amendment to article 8a of the DEBA (FF 2016 8631, in French), the legislator also created a new instrument which will enable victims of unjustified debt collection procedures to object to these becoming public knowledge, i.e. prevent them from appearing on Debt Collection Register [Registre des poursuites] extracts.

Under this amendment, if the debtor so requests within three months of the summons to pay [commandement de payer] being served, Debt Collection Offices [Offices des poursuites] must not make available to third parties information about debt enforcement proceedings, unless the creditor proves, within the twenty-day period granted by the Debt Collection Office [Office des poursuites], that a procedure to lift the objection [levée de l’opposition au commandement de payer] has been initiated in a timely manner (provisional or definitive lifting of the objection [mainlevée provisoire ou définitive] or action for recognition of debt [action en reconnaissance de dette]). Naturally, the debtor must already have filed a full objection to notice [opposition au commandement de payer]. To prove that a procedure to lift the objection has been initiated, the creditor can supply proof of posting or the acknowledgement of receipt of the request to lift the objection; in certain cantons, an invoice is acceptable (originals or copies of these documents).

When subsequently proof is supplied by the creditor that a request is pending, or that the debt enforcement is being continued, the information once again becomes available to third parties.

It should be noted that if the debtor’s request concerns an enforcement action that began more than five years previously, and therefore no longer appears in the Register, the relevant Debt Collection Office [Offices des poursuites] will not pursue the matter, because there is no interest to be protected.

This new provision became law on 1 January 2019.

Back to index

VI. The issue of abusive bankruptcies in debt collection procedures

With more than 17,000 bankruptcies opened each year in Switzerland, nearly 40% of which are suspended for lack of assets, a significant proportion of proceedings are in practice never brought to completion, due to the absence of assets sufficient even to cover procedural costs. This situation exposes the weaknesses of the current system and the risks of abuse linked to an opportunistic use of bankruptcy.

Since 1 January 2025, new provisions have been introduced to prevent the misuse of bankruptcy proceedings for abusive purposes. Indeed, certain directors previously took advantage of bankruptcy to erase their debts – particularly tax, social security and wage-related debts – before setting up a new company, often by repurchasing the assets of the bankrupt estate [masse en faillite] at a low price and rehiring their former staff. This allowed them to continue the same business activity under a different corporate name while benefitting from an unfair competitive advantage.

Such practices undermine fair competition and shift the burden of unpaid wages onto society, with unemployment insurances frequently covering them. To address this, recent reforms aim to prevent and sanction such conduct by strengthening transparency and directors’ responsibility, and by ensuring closer coordination between company law, bankruptcy law and economic criminal law.

Back to index

A) Amendments to the Swiss Code of Obligations

Several important amendments to the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO) of 30 March 1911 (RS 220) strengthen corporate transparency requirements.

First, the waiver of the limited audit (opting-out) is now strictly regulated. Until now, companies with fewer than ten employees could, with the consent of all shareholders, retroactively waive the audit of their accounts. From now on, the opting-out declaration only takes effect for the future and must be filed before the beginning of the financial year concerned (art. 727a al. 2 and 2bis CO). This measure aims to prevent companies from concealing financial difficulties, particularly vis-à-vis their creditors, for example when the auditor had identified irregularities or issued reservations in its report, especially in the event of over-indebtedness within the meaning of article 725b CO. Commercial register offices [Offices du registre du commerce] may also request renewal of the declaration where the tax authorities report that annual financial statements have not been filed, in order to ensure a minimum level of accounting oversight and early detection of over-indebtedness (art. 112 al. 4 of the Federal Act on Direct Federal Taxation (LIFD) of 14 December 1990 (RS 642.11)).

Second, the revised law introduces articles 684a and 787a CO, which render null and void the transfer of “share shells” [vente d’un manteau d’actions], meaning the sale of a company that legally still exists but is economically liquidated and over-indebted. The objective is to prevent the abusive reuse of empty legal entities to circumvent incorporation or liquidation rules. In the event of reasonable suspicion (in particular in the event of a simultaneous change of registered office, corporate purpose or board of directors), the Commercial Register [Office du registre du commerce] may request the production of annual accounts and refuse or cancel registration if the suspicions are confirmed (art. 684a al. 2 and 3 CO and art. 934 CO).

Finally, the introduction of article 928b CO establishes the possibility of searching for a person in the Commercial Register [Registre du commerce]. This publicly accessible online database provides an overview of an individual’s economic history: offices held, associated legal entities and any bankruptcy proceedings. The aim is to increase transparency and facilitate the work of authorities, particularly for the imposition of prohibition from carrying on an activity [interdiction d’exercer une profession], within the meaning of article 67 of the Swiss Criminal Code (CP) of 21 December 1937 (RS 311.0) (see below).

For further details, we invite you to consult our page dedicated to setting up a business in Switzerland.age

Back to index

B) Amendments to Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law

The most significant amendment to bankruptcy law consists in an abrogation. Under the former regime, public-law creditors, such as tax administrations, social insurance authorities or authorities levying fines, could not petition for the bankruptcy of a company. They were limited to enforcement by way of seizure, in contrast to private creditors, who could request the opening of bankruptcy proceedings. This special regime afforded a degree of protection to companies facing temporary liquidity difficulties, particularly regarding VAT, social security contributions or taxes. It allowed such entities time to regularise their situation and implement restructuring measures before bankruptcy was declared.

Under the new law, this distinction is abolished, placing public-law creditors on equal footing with private creditors by repealing paragraphs 1 and 1bis of article 43 DEBA. Public authorities must now, like any other creditor, resort to bankruptcy proceedings for the recovery of their claims against persons or entities subject to bankruptcy enforcement (namely companies limited by shares, limited liability companies, sole proprietorships, general partnerships, cooperatives, associations and foundations, pursuant to article 39 DEBA). In practice, unpaid VAT, AVS social security contributions, or other taxes may now justify a bankruptcy petition to the court. This represents a major change in the treatment of public debts. The recovery process is in fact facilitated for public authorities, who may lift objections to debt collection requests [réquisition de poursuite] through administrative decisions granting definitive relief from objection [mainlevée definitive] (art. 80 al. 2 nos. 2 and 5 DEBA), making the procedure faster and potentially riskier for debtors.

Once bankruptcy is opened, directors may also be held personally liable where their conduct has caused damage, particularly if they failed to comply with their statutory duties regarding oversight or notification of over-indebtedness (art. 754 et seq. CO). Such liability may also arise from special provisions, such as those concerning unpaid social security contributions (art. 51 AVS Act).

By removing the protection previously afforded to debtors against public-law creditors, the legislature seeks to prevent companies from systematically favouring private creditors and indefinitely postponing payment of tax and social security debts.

The new law also strengthens cooperation among authorities in combating economic offences. Pursuant to article 11 DEBA, Bankruptcy Offices [Offices des faillites] must systematically report to criminal authorities any offence prosecutable ex officio that they discover in the course of their duties or that is brought to their attention.

Every officer or agent of the Bankruptcy Office [Office des faillites] is also entitled to personally report detected offences (art. 11 para. 3 DEBA). This obligation aims to improve early detection of misconduct in insolvency proceedings and ensure consistent enforcement of economic criminal law.

Relevant offences notably include criminal mismanagement (art. 158 CP), fraudulent bankruptcy (art. 163 CP), reduction of assets to the prejudice of creditors (art. 164 CP), and failure to keep proper accounts (art. 166 CP). This framework is intended to strengthen coordination between bankruptcy law and criminal law, ensuring that cases of fraud or mismanagement are systematically reported to the public prosecutor.

Another measure provides that when a bankruptcy is suspended for lack of assets, it is closed if no creditor requests continuation of liquidation by advancing the required costs to the Bankruptcy Office [Office des faillites]. Until 2025, this suspension decision was only published officially (art. 230 al. 2 DEBA). Under the new law, known creditors – notably those who had served a summons to pay [commandement de payer] – must be notified by letter. This measure aims to enhance transparency and ensure that creditors have effective notice enabling them, if they wish, to continue the proceedings at their own expense.

Finally, the Bankruptcy Office is expressly authorised to open and review mail addressed to the debtor during the bankruptcy proceedings, unless the correspondence is manifestly irrelevant to the conduct of the procedure. This measure facilitates the identification and preservation of assets belonging to the bankruptcy estate [masse en faillite], and prevents the concealment of assets or documents material to the liquidation (art. 222a DEBA).

Back to index

C) Amendments to Criminal Law

The new legislation broadens the scope of the professional disqualification measure provided for in article 67 of the Swiss Criminal Code (CP). Before 2025, prohibition from carrying on an activity applied only to activities carried out by a person in an independent capacity, or as an organ, agent or representative of a third party. It now extends to any function required to be registered in the Commercial Register [Registre du commerce], including de facto corporate organs. Thus, a person acting without a formal title but exercising decisive influence within a company may be prohibited from carrying out similar activities and may be refused registration as a formal corporate organ.

To ensure the effectiveness of this measure, new coordination rules have been introduced. The Federal Office of the Commercial Register (OFRC) [Office fédéral du registre du commerce] must ensure that the central database of persons does not contain any entry incompatible with a professional disqualification (art. 928a para. 2bis CO). To this end, the cantonal criminal authorities must immediately transmit their decisions to the OFRC (art. 942 al. 3 CO), which may also consult the criminal records database (art. 47 lit. e of the Federal Act on Criminal Records (LCJ) of 17 June 2016 (RS 330)). If an incompatibility is identified, the OFRC shall notify the competent cantonal Commercial Register Office [Office du Registre du commerce], which must instruct the concerned entity to take the necessary measures (art. 928a al. 2ter and 2quater CO).

Back to index

VII. Conclusion on debt collection procedures in Switzerland

Under Swiss law, the creditor does not need any documentary evidence or specific title (judgement, etc.) to institute a debt recovery procedure. However, such evidence will be required if the debtor files an objection notice [opposition au commandement de payer].
The debt recovery procedure is independent of any substantive proceedings on the merits. Indeed, if the debtor files an objection [opposition] the procedure is suspended until a material decision has been rendered by the competent court in the place of jurisdiction [for judiciaire], which may be an arbitration court, for example.
A creditor can serve notice of a debt collection request [réquisition de poursuite] to safeguard his or her rights. When this document is sent, the time bar for the debt is interrupted and the creditor is informed immediately if the debtor is declared bankrupt. Moreover, if the debtor is uncooperative, once this document has been sent the objection can be definitively lifted [mainlevée définitive] as soon as the final judgement on the merits is received, rather than the creditor having to wait several months for notice of the demand for payment [commandement de payer] to be served, running a risk that the debtor could cause his financial situation to deteriorate or conceal possessions.
Except in cases of abuse of law, sending a debt collection request [réquisition de poursuite] does not constitute an illegal infringement of the debtor’s personal rights because it is expressly authorised by the law.
Once the preliminary phase has been completed, the debt collection procedure continues either by way of seizure or bankruptcy, depending on whether the debtor is registered in the Commercial Register [Registre du commerce].
The Swiss system protects both individuals and legal entities against unjustified enforcement, while also preventing abusive bankruptcies by unscrupulous debtors.

For any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Mr. Lorenzo CROCE has worked for the Commercial Chamber of the Geneva Court of First Instance, he has an extensive practice in this field.

Back to index