The federal structure of Switzerland is reflected in the organisation of its courts, which varies among the 26 cantons. In private wealth matters, three avenues can be distinguished: contentious matters, non-contentious matters, and child and adult protection authorities.

Contentious Matters

Civil courts have jurisdiction over civil matters. There are no specialised courts dealing with family businesses or trusts. Some cantons, such as Zurich, Bern and St. Gallen, have established commercial courts for commercial claims where the value in dispute is above CHF30,000. Since 1 January 2025, cantons may establish international commercial courts to hear cross-border commercial disputes with a value in dispute exceeding CHF100,000. In the canton of Zurich, the Zurich International Commercial Court has been established as a new chamber of the Zurich Commercial Court, conducting proceedings and issuing judgments in English. The cantons of Geneva and Bern are also in the process of establishing international commercial courts.

Civil actions are initiated by a conciliation request filed with the competent conciliation authority, which is often administratively attached to the relevant court. If the parties cannot reach a settlement before the conciliation authority, the claimant must proceed by filing the action with the court within three months of receipt of the so-called “permission to sue” from the conciliation authority.

Family matters involving married couples and children are directly referred to the court (eg, divorce, child maintenance, custody). Some cantons have established specialised divisions or dedicated chambers for family matters.

Non-Contentious Matters (Probate Proceedings, Measures in Connection with Succession)

Depending on the canton, probate proceedings and precautionary measures in connection with successions, such as the sealing of an estate, the establishment of an inventory, or the appointment of an estate administrator, are handled either by courts or by local administrative bodies. In the canton of Zurich, the courts are competent but typically delegate the execution of precautionary measures to a notary, whereas in the canton of Bern, the prefect’s offices deal with so-called “non-contentious matters”.

Child and Adult Protection Authorities

All cantons have specialised so-called “child and adult protection authorities” that aim to protect individuals who are unable to safeguard their own interests, for instance due to an illness or advanced age resulting in mental incapacity. Notably, these authorities are competent to validate advance care directives, appoint legal guardians for both children and adults, and supervise the implementation of such measures.

Switzerland’s Established Practice as Commercial Arbitration Forum

While Switzerland is an important and internationally recognised forum for commercial arbitration, arbitration of private wealth matters remains uncommon. Private wealth arbitration faces particular challenges, such as the inclusion of unborn or incapacitated persons in the proceedings. Moreover, the relevant governing instruments are often unilateral in nature (eg, trust deeds, foundation deeds or last wills), which creates legal uncertainty as to the parties’ consent to arbitration. Finally, although Switzerland applies a broad concept of arbitrability – covering, in international arbitration, all disputes involving an economic interest – certain private wealth matters are not arbitrable and must therefore be brought before state courts (eg, non-contentious matters; see 1.1 Court System).

New TEF Rules for Private Wealth Matters

On 1 July 2025, the Swiss Arbitration Center (SAC) introduced new Supplemental Rules for Trust, Estate and Foundation Disputes (the “TEF Rules”), which aim to address the specific challenges of private wealth disputes and further strengthen Switzerland’s position as a major arbitration forum. The TEF Rules apply to arbitration proceedings based on both arbitration agreements and unilateral arbitration clauses and primarily regulate the due process rights of entitled persons. The TEF Rules provide a modern, efficient and confidential framework for high net worth families as well as trust and foundation practitioners. Notably, the TEF Rules do not require the arbitral tribunal to be seated in Switzerland. The TEF Rules certainly encourage the use of arbitration in private wealth matters. However, given the lack of precedents, legal uncertainties remain, particularly regarding the personal scope of unilateral arbitration clauses and the enforceability of respective arbitral awards under the New York Convention.

Notably, there is an ongoing discussion over whether forced heirs are bound in Swiss legal doctrine by a unilateral arbitration clause contained in a last will. Some authors argue that forced heirs should be bound by unilateral arbitration clauses because they can freely dispose of their entitlement by renouncing the inheritance. However, this argument does not consider forced heirs who were completely excluded from a last will (so-called “virtual heirs”).

Since 1 January 2023, the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO) has regulated unilateral arbitration clauses in articles of association and defined the personal scope of the arbitration clause, binding the company, its corporate bodies and their members, as well as the shareholders, by operation of corporate law. The SAC issued corresponding Supplemental Rules for Corporate Law Disputes which can be incorporated into the articles of association by reference.

Mediation is also known under Swiss law. It is voluntary and may be initiated by the parties or be recommended by the court. A settlement agreement reached through mediation and approved by either the conciliation authority or the court has the same legal effect as a court judgment. All contentious matters within the jurisdiction of the courts (see 1.1 Court System) may be resolved through mediation. Estate disputes in Switzerland are often settled amicably by the parties (with or without a mediator) after court proceedings have been initiated due to the cost and length of the proceedings.

The allocation of court costs and compensation for legal fees depends on the outcome of the proceedings and is generally borne by the losing party. However, in certain cases, the court may depart from this general principle and allocate costs at its discretion, based on considerations of equity. Courts generally allocate costs based on equity in estate division proceedings, since each party simultaneously assumes the role of both claimant and respondent (so-called “actio duplex”) and prayers for relief do not generally result in procedural success or failure. Depending on the circumstances, the parties must bear the court costs based on their inheritance share.

In state court proceedings, claimants are required by the court to make an advance payment covering the expected court costs. Since 1 January 2025, the claimant no longer bears the debt collection risk vis-à-vis the defendant for court costs. The debt collection risk is assumed by the state. In addition, at the defendant’s request, a claimant may be required to provide security for the compensation of legal fees where there is a risk that such compensation will not be paid, for example where claimant has no domicile in Switzerland.

Switzerland does not have its own trust law, but it recognises foreign trusts under the 1985 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition (the “1985 Hague Trust Convention”). The possibility of funding legal fees or court costs out of trust assets depends on the (foreign) law governing the trust. Jurisprudence of the Swiss Federal Tribunal on trust-related matters remains limited and is still developing.

High court costs and accruing legal fees generally incentivise the parties to engage in settlement negotiations. In practice, the prevailing party can usually only recover part of their legal fees, as compensation for party costs is typically lower than the actual fees incurred. The amount of court costs and compensation for legal fees are governed by cantonal tariffs. For example, in the canton of Zurich, court costs depend on the value in dispute.

Swiss Private International Law Act

In cross-border cases and where no international treaty prevails, the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA) stipulates in which cases Swiss courts will have jurisdiction. Swiss international succession law was revised with effect from 1 January 2025, with the principal objectives of modernisation and closer alignment with the EU Succession Regulation, particularly to reduce conflicts of jurisdiction. In succession matters, the connecting factor for jurisdiction is generally the last domicile of the deceased in the sense of Article 20 of the PILA. For pecuniary claims, the parties may agree on a competent court.

Jurisdiction and Applicable Law

Generally speaking, Swiss courts or authorities have jurisdiction over the division of the deceased’s worldwide estate if the last domicile of a deceased person was in Switzerland. However, the jurisdiction of a state that claims exclusive jurisdiction over real estate within its territory remains reserved. A testator may, within the statutory limits, make a choice of forum in a last will or inheritance contract. For example, a Swiss citizen may submit the estate (or part of it) to Swiss jurisdiction. Furthermore, a testator may waive Swiss jurisdiction for real estate located abroad or submit the estate to their foreign state of citizenship. A subsidiary jurisdiction of Swiss courts or authorities at the place of origin of a Swiss citizen residing abroad is granted to the extent that the foreign authorities do not deal with the Swiss estate. The same rule applies to a foreign citizen residing abroad if the assets located in Switzerland are not dealt with by the foreign authorities.

If Swiss international jurisdiction is given, then the applicable law is also determined by the PILA. Generally, Swiss inheritance law governs the estate if the deceased had their last domicile in Switzerland, unless a choice of law was made in favour of the law of the deceased’s country of citizenship. A restriction applies if the deceased was a Swiss national to the extent that Swiss nationals may not derogate from the Swiss forced heirship rules. Hence, whether Swiss jurisdiction is beneficial depends on various factors. Last but not least, inheritance tax is a major consideration. Typically, Switzerland may levy inheritance taxes if the deceased’s last domicile was in Switzerland or if real estate is located in Switzerland.

For trust-related matters, it is generally questionable whether the prorogation (choice) of a Swiss court is appropriate. Since proceedings before Swiss courts must be conducted in the respective national language and not in English, it is often necessary to translate all documents written in English or another foreign language. Furthermore, there is no Swiss trust law and Swiss courts are hardly familiar with Anglo-Saxon trust law. Given the complexity of Anglo-Saxon trust law, there is generally no guarantee that the applicable trust law will be applied correctly.

Procedural Considerations

Where Swiss courts are competent, parties may be inclined to litigate in Switzerland due to the relatively low entry barriers to court proceedings. Civil litigation generally begins with a conciliation proceeding, the purpose of which is to encourage the parties to reach an amicable settlement. Court costs for conciliation are typically low, and the request for conciliation may be a simple and relatively short submission, with the prayers for relief constituting the most relevant element. Notably, the relatively short one-year deadline for bringing inheritance law claims (see 1.5 Litigation Procedures and Techniques) often forces claimants to start civil litigation.

In terms of deadlines, heirs or legatees who wish to renounce the inheritance or legacy must do so within three months of the deceased’s death or of becoming aware of their entitlement. They may also request the establishment of a public inventory within one month. This instrument limits their liability to the debts recorded in the inventory and enables them to make an informed decision as to whether to renounce the inheritance or legacy.

Finally, Switzerland offers a particularly attractive forum due to its political and legal stability, a well-established judiciary, and a high degree of legal certainty, which benefits all parties involved. Further incentives to litigate in Switzerland include the fact that legal representation is not mandatory in civil proceedings and the availability of legal aid covering court costs and legal fees.

Generally speaking, actions under Swiss inheritance law must be filed within a one-year deadline (for example, challenges to wills or claims for abatement), which can be met by filing a request for conciliation. The conciliation authority invites the parties to a hearing aimed at encouraging a settlement. The parties often jointly request to suspend conciliation proceedings for further amicable settlement negotiations. If no settlement is reached, the claimant must file the action in the court within three months.

Parties frequently continue settlement negotiations during court proceedings and may jointly request a suspension, which courts generally grant. The court may also invite the parties to an instruction hearing. These hearings allow the court to clarify facts, discuss the dispute informally, attempt a settlement, and prepare for the main hearing. Importantly, the court may outline its legal analysis, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of both parties’ arguments to encourage settlement.

From a creditor’s perspective, Swiss law offers an attractive feature with respect to assets located in Switzerland. Such assets may be frozen by way of an attachment order (see 5.3 Defence Against Creditor Claims). In addition, Swiss banks tend to act cautiously and will likely freeze bank accounts at an early stage when confronted with substantiated allegations of money laundering.

Unlike common law jurisdictions, the Swiss legal system does not provide for broad pre-trial discovery mechanisms. Similarly, so-called “litigation hold letters” requesting preservation of documents, data and information for future litigation in Switzerland are not recognised by Swiss law.

Most civil proceedings relevant to private wealth disputes are governed by the principle that the parties must produce evidence supporting their claims. This requires the parties to present the court with the relevant facts and submit corresponding evidence. The court investigates ex officio only in limited cases, such as matters involving children in family law proceedings. Evidence is admitted and assessed freely by the court.

Parties also have a duty to co-operate in the taking of evidence, including providing truthful testimony as a party or witness and producing documents or correspondence, to the extent not protected by attorney-client privilege. However, the court does not permit “fishing expeditions”: a party must specify with sufficient precision which documents the counterparty should produce and explain their relevance to the case.

In private wealth disputes, voluntary disclosure often occurs at an early stage between the parties during settlement negotiations, as heirs and third parties can be compelled by the court to provide relevant information under the applicable material law. It is also common for such information to be formally requested in court. Additionally, criminal proceedings or the involvement of investigative firms may yield information relevant to civil proceedings, for example in the context of asset tracing.

The law and federal jurisprudence establish that heirs owe a broad duty to other heirs to provide all information and documentation that may be relevant to the estate division. The same duty applies to third parties in analogy; however, its scope can be restricted.

Swiss banks generally provide information if the requesting heir can demonstrate:

• that the deceased maintained a banking relationship with the institution;
• that the contractual relationship has passed to the requesting heir under the applicable law; and
• that the heir has a legally protected, overriding interest under inheritance law.

Forced heirs asserting claims related to so-called “hotchpot” (taking into account gifts made during lifetime to ensure equal treatment, usually of children) or so-called “abatement” (reduction of gifts during lifetime and other transfers of assets where the estate’s funds are insufficient to satisfy the forced share) typically meet these requirements.

The Swiss legal system recognises various types of legal privileges, including the attorney-client privilege, as well as privileges of notaries and doctors to withhold information in court.

The attorney-client privilege is governed by Article 13 of the Federal Act on the Free Movement of Lawyers, Article 321 of the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC), and the Swiss and cantonal Codes of Professional Conduct. It protects all communications between a client and their attorney relating to the attorney’s professional activities, as well as any information acquired in the course of the mandate. The privilege continues after the mandate ends. Article 321 of the SCC similarly protects the professional secrecy of notaries, doctors and other professionals.

The attorney-client privilege may be waived by the client. If the client refuses to consent, the attorney may petition the supervisory authority for release. Attorneys generally request a waiver of the attorney-client privilege when seeking to enforce claims for unpaid legal fees.

Importantly, attorneys retain an absolute right to refuse to co-operate in civil and criminal proceedings, even if released from the privilege by the client or supervisory authority. Other professionals, such as doctors, may only refuse participation if they can show on a prima facie basis that their secrecy interests (eg, patient wellbeing) outweigh the interest in establishing the truth.

In private wealth proceedings, a party may wish to call the former doctor, notary or attorney of a testator as a witness. To do so, the party usually requests the court to direct the supervisory authority to release the respective person from their professional secrecy.

First, a will may be challenged if the formal requirements are not met. To be formally valid, a last will must either be handwritten and signed by the testator (a holographic will) or notarised in a public deed in the presence of two independent witnesses. Courts follow specific rules when assessing the formal validity of a last will or parts thereof. Inheritance contracts are valid only if notarised in a public deed in the presence of two independent witnesses.

Second, a disposition mortis causa may be challenged for material reasons:

• if the testator lacked capacity of disposition;
• if the disposition resulted from lack of free will, such as error or influence through malicious deception, threats, or coercion; or
• if its content or attached conditions are immoral or unlawful.

Finally, a disposition in favour of a person unworthy of inheriting is void. A person is considered unworthy of inheriting if they wilfully and unlawfully:

• caused or attempted to cause the death of the deceased;
• rendered the deceased permanently incapable of making a disposition mortis causa; or
• induced or prevented the deceased from making or revoking a disposition mortis causa by malice, coercion, or threat.

In recent years, the Federal Tribunal has rendered several decisions on this topic, often involving trusted individuals such as caregivers or advisors.

A challenge to the formal or material validity of a will must be brought within a relative prescription period of one year, which begins when the claimant becomes aware of the will and the ground for its invalidity. In any event, the claim for invalidity expires ten years after the commencement of probate proceedings. As a precaution, claimants should file a will challenge within one year of the testator’s death.

If a beneficiary acts in bad faith, challenges based on lack of capacity, immorality, or unlawfulness do not prescribe until 30 years have passed. Invalidity may also be invoked as a defence at any time.

Where the grounds for invalidity are particularly serious, a will may be deemed void ex officio. However, since voidness is usually not evident, prudent claimants assert both voidness and invalidity within the prescription period. Challenges are initiated by filing a request for conciliation (see 1.5 Litigation Procedures and Techniques).

In principle, no-contest clauses are valid under Swiss law. However, they may be successfully challenged if they aim to prevent an heir or beneficiary from exercising legal rights (such as contesting the validity of a will or claiming a forced share) or if the testamentary disposition is immoral or unlawful. Essentially, a no-contest clause is only effective if the challenge is unsuccessful.

Under Swiss law, there are two main legal instruments to address capacity issues: the advance care directive and the patient decree. In practice, general powers of attorney are also frequently used.

Capacity issues fall under adult protection law, which seeks to respect an individual’s right to self-determination as far as possible. Only if a person’s own arrangements (advance care directive or patient decree) are insufficient will the Child and Adult Protection Authority take statutory measures to protect their interests.

Through an advance care directive, a person with capacity may appoint a natural person or legal entity to manage (i) personal care, (ii) assets, and/or (iii) legal representation in the event of incapacity. The directive must be either handwritten (holographic) or notarised in a public deed. Upon loss of capacity, the Child and Adult Protection Authority validates the directive and confirms in a decree whether the appointee is fit to act.

General powers of attorney often contain a clause according to which they remain effective even after the principal loses capacity. Such clauses are valid under Swiss law. In practice, however, agents may encounter difficulties: For example, cantonal authorities often request notarised special powers of attorney for real estate transactions, and banks typically require their own forms. If abuse is suspected, the Child and Adult Protection Authority may intervene and take appropriate measures. Furthermore, the Federal Tribunal held that adult protection measures may be required if the principal cannot control the agent anymore, whether directly or through their immediate circle.

A patient decree allows a person with capacity to specify which medical procedures they consent to and to appoint a medical representative in case of incapacity. It must be executed in writing, dated, and signed.

Family wealth structures for substantial fortunes often involve foreign trusts, as well as family foundations established under foreign law. Switzerland does not have a trust law and only restrictively allows family foundations under Swiss law. However, it recognises foreign trusts under the 1985 Hague Trust Convention and family foundations established under foreign law.

Family businesses are usually held through a corporation, where shareholder agreements are used to ensure compliance with succession planning, including pre-emption rights, voting rights and governance rules.

The transfer of shares into a trust or foundation may also be used as an estate planning tool, either to ensure that the wealth is preserved for the next generation or as an asset protection tool.

The transfer of assets can occur during the lifetime of the transferor or after their demise. Under Swiss inheritance law there is a general rule that each child must bring into hotchpot all substantial lifetime gifts of their parents unless the donor has waived the hotchpot duty. Hence, if the children shall or cannot be treated equally, then a waiver of the hotchpot duty is recommended. However, forced heirship rights may not be undermined by such a waiver covering only the hotchpot duty. Notably, forced heirs may additionally waive their statutory entitlement (forced heirship rights) in an inheritance contract (see below).

In any event, the transfer of a business into a trust or foundation needs special consideration under Swiss matrimonial and inheritance law. If the spouses are married under the statutory matrimonial regime of participation of acquired property, the non-consenting spouse can claim that the assets transferred to the trust or foundation shall be added to the marital assets for calculation purposes. The same applies to forced heirs: they can claim that the transfer has violated their forced heirship rights if the transfer has taken place five years prior to the death of the donor or – without time limitation – if the transfer was made to circumvent the forced heirship rights.

To avoid disputes, it is recommended that the donor provides for the consent of their spouse, depending on the applicable matrimonial property regime, and enters into an inheritance contract, under which the forced heirs renounce their forced heirship rights, partially or in full, with or without consideration.

Disputes arising from private wealth structuring may be resolved either in civil courts or through arbitration (see 1.2 Arbitration and Mediation).

Switzerland recognises trusts under the 1985 Hague Trust Convention, and Swiss federal jurisprudence recognises foreign family foundations. Provided that forced heirship rights are respected, such structures are generally upheld under Swiss law. As long as a trust or family foundation is not a sham, the legal separation between the assets and the settlor or founder will be respected. However, where a (foreign) legal entity is being used in an abusive manner to gain an unjustified advantage, Swiss courts may pierce the corporate veil and seize the assets (see 6.3 Fiduciary Liability).

Switzerland is generally considered a creditor-friendly jurisdiction. The Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (DEBA) provides for an accessible and efficient system for the enforcement of creditor claims. Assets located in Switzerland can be frozen by means of an attachment order if statutory requirements are met (see 5.3 Defence Against Creditor Claims).

Both pre- and postnuptial agreements are known under Swiss law, and the same legal standards – including the requirement of good faith – apply to both types of agreements. Both must be executed before a notary in a public deed.

The principle of convertibility of property status applies under Swiss private international law. Hence, if spouses relocate to Switzerland, Swiss matrimonial property law shall apply retroactively to the date of the marriage unless the spouses have concluded a marriage contract or agreed that the previously applicable law shall continue to govern their matrimonial property affairs.

Swiss law foresees three marital property regimes:

• participation in acquired property;
• separation of property; and
• community of property.

If no agreement is concluded, the default regime is participation in acquired property. Under this regime, in the event of liquidation of the matrimonial property regime (through divorce or death), each spouse retains the assets brought into the marriage, as well as gifts and inheritances received during the marriage (individual property), while all income generated during the marriage is divided equally (acquired property) between the spouses.

Pre- and postnuptial agreements allow spouses to modify the default regime within the limits of the Civil Code (CC), or to opt for separation of property or community of property. For example, they may designate income from individual property or assets reserved for professional or business use as individual property. They may also stipulate that the surviving spouse receives all acquired property rather than only half. Notably, forced heirship rights of children who are not the common issue of the spouses are reserved. Pre- and postnuptial agreements may further regulate post-marital maintenance, which courts will approve unless they are obviously unreasonable. Children-related matters are decided by the court ex-officio. Typically, ultra-high net worth individuals agree on separation of property to protect the family wealth and agree on post-marital maintenance to secure a certain standard to their spouse after the divorce.

Assets cannot be protected from creditors through alteration or change of the applicable matrimonial property regime, and such transfers may, depending on the circumstances, be challenged under the DEBA. Courts may, upon request, restrict a spouse’s power to dispose of assets and block bank accounts if the family’s financial security or obligations arising from the marriage – such as maintenance claims – are at risk. Swiss law entitles spouses to request information from each other at any time.

In Switzerland, so-called asset fencing is uncommon. Where a claim exists and is due, a debtor has very limited options for protection.

Any transfer of assets intended to harm creditors may be challenged through a so-called “Paulian Action” (Article 285 et seq, DEBA) and may also constitute a criminal offence (Article 163 et seq, SCC). As noted above, Switzerland does not have a domestic trust law, and the courts may pierce the corporate veil (see 6.3 Fiduciary Liability).

Assets located in Switzerland can be frozen by means of an attachment order if statutory requirements are met (Article 271 et seq, DEBA). A common example is asset freezing against foreign debtors who hold assets, such as bank accounts or real estate, in Switzerland. A person anticipating an attachment order may file a protective letter with the competent court at the location of the assets to set out their position in advance, aiming to reduce the risk of an attachment order being granted to the creditor.

Notably, a creditor may initiate debt enforcement proceedings without first obtaining a judgment by filing a debt enforcement request with the locally competent debt enforcement office. Upon receipt, the office issues a payment order to the debtor. The debtor may contest the claim by filing an objection within ten days. To set aside the objection, the creditor must bring a claim in court.

Procedural pathways and standards of proof depend on the basis of the claim. For example, for claims based on a judgment, the debtor’s objections are limited. They may only prove that the debt has been paid, deferred or is barred by limitation. For claims based on a contract, the debtor must credibly demonstrate that the contract did not validly arise (eg, due to lack of signature) or is ineffective (eg, because a contractual condition was not fulfilled).

Claims against trustees are primarily governed by the law applicable to the trust, typically the relevant foreign law. Accordingly, the applicable law depends on the specific trust in question.

From a Swiss perspective, a trust has no legal personality. Beneficiaries must sue the trustee directly for claims relating to the trust, such as alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. If Swiss law applies, claims against fiduciaries are generally governed by Swiss mandate law (Article 394 et seq, CO), unless specific provisions apply – for example, to company directors and officers (Article 754, CO) or executors (Article 517 et seq, CC). Criminal charges may also be brought against a fiduciary, for instance in cases of mismanagement of entrusted property (Article 158, SCC).

Federal jurisprudence on trusts in the context of Swiss inheritance law is still developing, and uncertainties remain. In certain circumstances, claims against a trustee may potentially be brought in Switzerland, particularly where forced heirs challenge transfers from a deceased to a trust or distributions from a trust to beneficiaries, alleging violations of statutory entitlement rights or abatement duties under Swiss inheritance law.

Portfolio managers and trustees must be licensed by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) to operate commercially. Licensed fiduciaries are subject to ongoing supervision, and any person who suspects a breach of regulations may report it to FINMA.

Unless a contractual relationship exists, a third party generally cannot bring a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. However, claims may be pursued on the basis of tort or unjust enrichment. Swiss law also recognises pre-contractual liability (so-called “culpa in contrahendo”) based on the principle of good faith. For example, potential investors misled by a portfolio manager’s false statements may potentially bring a claim if the legal requirements are satisfied. Finally, parties may enter into a contract in favour of a third party, under which the third party may be entitled to claim performance depending on the circumstances.

Under Swiss law, a legal entity generally has its own legal personality, which must be distinguished from the natural or legal persons acting on its behalf.

As an exception, the corporate veil may be pierced if:

• the legal entity is economically dependent on a controlling person; and
• the controlling person invokes the entity’s separate legal personality abusively to gain an unjustified advantage.

The Federal Tribunal recently applied this principle in the context of Swiss inheritance law. It reasoned that gifts made by a legal entity controlled by the testator to a selected child or children, resulting in unequal treatment of the other children, may be subject to hotchpot if statutory requirements are met.

The liability of foundation board members largely follows corporate rules by analogy. In the corporate context, directors have non-delegable duties, such as overall management and determination of the company’s organisation. Unless otherwise provided in the articles of association, the board may delegate transferable tasks, such as business management, to individual members or third-party professionals. A valid delegation limits a board member’s personal liability to the proper selection, instruction and supervision of the delegate(s) (“cura in eligendo, instruendo et custodiendo”). Notably, liability exclusion for unlawful intent or gross negligence is void.

Swiss inheritance law provides for forced heirship rights (so-called “statutory entitlement”) for the surviving spouse and children. Under the revised inheritance law (in force since 1 January 2023), the forced share for both spouses and children amounts to one half of the statutory share. For example, where there is a surviving spouse and two children, the spouse’s statutory entitlement is one quarter and each child’s entitlement is one eighth, leaving the testator free to dispose of the remaining half of their estate. Since 1 January 2023, a spouse loses their forced share if they file a joint request for divorce or if a divorce proceeding has been initiated after the spouses have lived separately for two years.

There are certain tools used in practice to increase the flexibility of the testator within the limits of the law. For example, spouses may provide in a pre- or postnuptial agreement that the surviving spouse shall receive all of the acquired property upon death (under the participation in acquired property regime). Such disposition may adversely affect the common issue’s share which would otherwise fall into the estate. Therefore, it will not be taken into consideration when calculating the common issue’s and surviving spouse’s statutory entitlement. However, the revised law clearly states that such dispositions must not infringe the statutory entitlement of children from other relationships.

Moreover, usufruct rights may be established to enlarge the surviving spouse’s share in cases of a married couple with common children. The testator may grant the surviving spouse usufruct rights over the portion of the estate that would otherwise pass to the children and grant the wife full ownership of half of the estate.

Finally, forced heirs may renounce their statutory entitlement during the testator’s lifetime through a contract of succession, with or without consideration (see 4.1 Intrafamily Disputes).

If an heir claims a violation of their statutory entitlement, they must file an action in abatement within one year of becoming aware of:

• the death of the deceased;
• their status as a forced heir;
• the existence of a disposition infringing on their entitlement; and
• the identity of the beneficiary of such disposition.

In practice, such claims are generally initiated within one year of the deceased’s passing through a request for conciliation (see 1.5 Litigation Procedures and Techniques). Abatement of transfers depends on their timing, with the most recent transfers being abated before earlier ones.

In addition to abatement claims, forced heirs often pursue hotchpot claims. This mechanism serves to calculate the forced share: transfers subject to hotchpot and abatement are added back to the net estate. Notably, advances against a person’s share of inheritance that are not subject to hotchpot (see4.1 Intrafamily Disputes) may still be abated. The resulting calculation determines the statutory entitlement. If the net estate is insufficient to satisfy the heir’s forced share, transfers are abated according to the order described above.

In principle, the applicable law of succession is based on the testator’s last domicile. If the testator’s last domicile was abroad, the estate is governed by the private international law of that state. Where such foreign rules refer back to Swiss law, Swiss courts will apply the inheritance law of the state of domicile.

A testator’s freedom to choose the applicable law is limited by public policy considerations. Swiss courts recognise a choice of law made by Swiss or foreign citizens in favour of the law of a state of citizenship. However, Swiss (including dual) citizens remain bound by Swiss forced heirship rules and cannot circumvent them by way of choice of law (see 1.4 Forum Choice).

As set out in 1.4 Forum Choice, a division of the estate administration can occur by way of law or by the right of the testator to prorogate a foreign forum. Pursuant to some scholars, Swiss courts must still take into consideration the assets located and adjudicated abroad for the purposes of forced heirship law.

Given Switzerland’s federal structure, taxes are levied at the federal, cantonal and communal levels, with regulations – including tax rates – varying by canton and community.

Switzerland has a well-established ruling practice, allowing taxpayers to clarify the tax consequences of transactions across all types of taxes in advance with the competent authorities.

Swiss tax law distinguishes between tax evasion (infraction) and tax fraud (misdemeanour). A person commits tax evasion by intentionally or negligently causing a tax assessment to be omitted, a final assessment to be incomplete, failing to make a tax withholding, or obtaining an unlawful refund or remission. Tax fraud occurs where a person uses forged, falsified or materially untruthful documents to deceive the tax authorities, with intent to evade taxes.

Prosecution differs by type of offence: cantonal tax authorities handle tax evasion, while regional criminal prosecution offices pursue tax fraud. Qualified tax fraud – where evaded taxes exceed CHF300,000 per tax period – is a predicate offence for money laundering.

See 8.1 Tax Authorities and Civil Regulators for an overview of criminal proceedings related to tax offences. Gatekeepers – including lawyers, accountants, trustees and other fiduciaries – may face criminal liability for tax evasion, tax fraud or money laundering if their involvement constitutes incitement, complicity or co-perpetration.

In Switzerland, the prosecution of offences is an exclusive function of the State. Individuals may participate in criminal proceedings if they qualify as persons suffering harm under the Criminal Procedure Code. Such persons may elect to participate in the criminal proceedings as private claimants. As parties to the proceedings, private claimants have the right to inspect case files, take part in procedural acts and assert civil claims arising from the offence within the criminal proceedings.

In Switzerland, cross-border tax and civil enforcement matters are governed by a combination of international agreements and domestic legislation. Switzerland has concluded numerous treaties with countries in Europe and worldwide to avoid double taxation and facilitate the exchange of information for various types of taxes. Cantonal and federal tax authorities may pursue tax claims abroad by requesting assistance from foreign authorities. Such assistance is governed by the Federal Act on International Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, in accordance with Switzerland’s international tax agreements. Switzerland has also implemented the global standard for the automatic exchange of information on financial accounts (AEOI), ensuring broad international co-operation in tax matters.

Foreign civil law judgments may be enforced in Switzerland either under international treaties, such as the Lugano Convention, or under the Private International Law Act. Foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforced in Switzerland under the New York Convention.

Switzerland does not have a formal procedure to “correct” mistakes in a last will. The testator may, however, revoke a will or any part of it at any time during their lifetime. After the testator’s death, the court may interpret the will to ascertain the testator’s real intentions and inheritance contracts based on the principle of good faith.

As noted above, Switzerland does not have a domestic trust law (see 4.1 Intrafamily Disputes). Swiss foundations are typically established for charitable purposes. Their deeds may be amended if statutory requirements are met. A distinction must be drawn between essential amendments and minor amendments. For example, amending a foundation’s objects is considered essential and subject to a heightened legal standard, whereas minor amendments that do not affect third-party rights may be made under a simplified procedure. The supervisory authority is in charge of ordering amendments, usually upon request of the foundation’s board.

In Switzerland, there are no legal mechanisms that allow trustees or other fiduciaries to correct or “undo” discretionary decisions that produce unintended consequences.

Notably, heirs may file a complaint with the supervisory authority against executors for breaches of their duties, in addition to pursuing civil claims. The supervisory authority may require the executor to fulfil their obligations, for example by preparing an inventory, providing information to the heirs or imposing disciplinary measures such as warnings or fines. The removal of an executor is considered a measure of last resort and is rarely ordered.

Swiss culture places a high value on privacy, discretion and confidentiality. Parties typically engage in extensive negotiations before initiating court proceedings. By the time a matter reaches court, relationships between the parties may already be strained, potentially impeding settlement discussions.

In estate matters, a notable feature is the relatively short timeframe for filing claims. Actions for abatement or to challenge transfers that violate inheritance contracts must be brought within one year. Parties often reach a settlement during court proceedings; only a small proportion of cases result in judicial decisions, and even fewer are appealed to the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

A demographic trend is emerging as “baby boomers” age: issues such as incapacity to establish a last will, financial abuse of the elderly and unworthiness to inherit by persons of trust are becoming increasingly relevant. Consequently, proceedings before the Child and Adult Protection Authority are of growing importance for private client practitioners.

Generational tensions are also surfacing, particularly within foundations and trusts. As younger generations enter and older generations step back, conflicts may arise over personal values, transfer and control of wealth.

Arbitration has recently been promoted as a tool to preserve the privacy and confidentiality valued by ultra-high net worth individuals, while simplifying cross-border estate division and reducing jurisdictional complications. Nonetheless, significant legal uncertainties remain, particularly regarding the personal scope of unilateral arbitration clauses (see 1.2 Arbitration and Mediation). These uncertainties are likely less pronounced for companies that include arbitration clauses in their articles of association, which may be especially relevant for family-owned businesses. Whether arbitration will gain greater relevance in private wealth disputes remains uncertain, but it is a development worth monitoring given Switzerland’s established reputation as a leading forum for commercial arbitration and the introduction of the new TEF Rules (see 1.2 Arbitration and Mediation).