Facts
A. Limited, a company domiciled in Guernsey, wanted to have a property located in Switzerland belonging to the Republic of Uzbekistan attached in order to secure the enforcement of an arbitral award issued on December 17, 2015 in Paris under the UNCITRAL rules in a dispute between the English company B. and the Republic of Uzbekistan. A. Limited had been assigned the proceeds of the arbitration proceedings under English law.
The single judge at the District Court of March attached the property on August 29, 2016. However, the objection of the Republic of Uzbekistan was upheld and the attachment order was lifted. A. Limited then filed a complaint with the Cantonal Court of Schwyz, which was dismissed.
A. Limited filed an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, requesting that the decision of the Cantonal Court be overturned and the attachment order be confirmed.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It stated that for an attachment of assets of a foreign state, a sufficient domestic connection of the underlying legal relationship to Switzerland is required. This requirement was not met here, as the debt relationship was neither established nor to be performed in Switzerland, nor had the foreign state taken any actions in Switzerland to establish a place of performance.
The Federal Supreme Court clarified that the requirement of a domestic connection is a question of the jurisdiction of Swiss authorities over a foreign state and thus a procedural requirement. If this requirement is not met, the credibility of the grounds for attachment under Art. 271 para. 1 no. 6 DEBA fails, as the judge responsible for the enforcement is likely to dismiss any request for…