Taking Evidence Abroad in Swiss Civil Cases: Practical Guide for 2026

Taking evidence abroad in Switzerland has entered a new phase. The Federal Council’s 2025 approval of amendments to Switzerland’s declaration under the Hague Evidence Convention, together with related reforms to the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), took effect on 1 January 2026, streamlining several cross-border civil procedure mechanisms. For litigators, in-house counsel and international law firms navigating cross-border discovery or enforcement actions involving Switzerland, the practical implications are immediate: familiar routes have changed, new tactical options have opened, and canton-level practice continues to vary. This guide provides a step-by-step roadmap covering every available route, complete with checklists, sample wording, comparison tables and realistic timeline and cost expectations updated for civil evidence in Switzerland in 2026.

What Changed in 2026, Immediate Practical Effects

The 2026 changes affect both the international framework (Switzerland’s Hague Evidence Convention declaration) and domestic procedure (CPC evidence provisions). Understanding what moved, and what stayed the same, is essential before selecting a cross-border evidence route.

The Federal Council approved the following key changes during 2025, all effective 1 January 2026:

• Amended Hague Declaration. Switzerland updated its declaration under the 1970 Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (the “Hague Evidence Convention”). The revised declaration clarifies the scope of prior authorization required from the Federal Department of Justice and Police (FDJP) for evidence-taking under Articles 15, 16 and 17 of the Convention. As recorded in the HCCH status table, the updated notifications refine the conditions under which diplomatic officers, consular agents and commissioners may take evidence on Swiss territory.
• CPC Evidence Reforms. Complementary amendments to the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure address the domestic procedural framework for requesting evidence from abroad and for assisting foreign courts. Industry observers expect these reforms to reduce friction for Swiss courts processing incoming and outgoing requests.
• Canton Implementation. Cantonal central authorities have begun issuing updated practice notes reflecting the new rules. The Canton of Zurich’s Obergericht, for example, has published revised guidance on commissioner conditions and request routing.

Timeline of Key Dates

The practical takeaway is clear: any evidence request involving Switzerland that is drafted or filed in 2026 must account for both the amended Hague declaration and the revised CPC provisions. Requests prepared under the old framework risk delays or rejection.

Routes to Obtain Evidence From or in Switzerland, Overview

Cross-border civil procedure in Switzerland offers several distinct routes for taking or requesting evidence abroad. Each route has different procedural mechanics, timelines and strategic implications. The five principal channels are set out below.

Hague Evidence Convention, Chapter I (Letters of Request)

The primary formal mechanism under the Hague Evidence Convention. A judicial authority in one Contracting State sends a Letter of Request to the central authority of the requested State (in Switzerland, the relevant canton authority) for the purpose of obtaining evidence. This is the most widely used route and benefits from international recognition and predictable procedures.

Hague Evidence Convention, Chapter II (Direct Taking of Evidence)

Chapter II permits diplomatic officers, consular agents or appointed commissioners to take evidence directly on Swiss territory, subject to the conditions in Switzerland’s Hague declaration. The 2026 amendments have refined the prior-authorization requirements under Articles 15, 16 and 17, making this route potentially faster in certain circumstances.

Letters Rogatory and Diplomatic Channels

Where the Hague Evidence Convention does not apply, for instance, when the requesting state is not a Contracting State, traditional letters rogatory sent through diplomatic channels remain available. This route is flexible but often slower due to multi-layer diplomatic routing. Swiss federal guidelines published by the Federal Office of Justice (rhf.admin.ch) address the procedural requirements.

Commissioner and Diplomatic/Consular Depositions

A commissioner appointed under Chapter II, or a diplomatic/consular officer, may examine witnesses in Switzerland. Prior authorization from the FDJP may be required depending on the specific Article invoked and the nature of the evidence. The Canton of Zurich’s Obergericht has published detailed conditions for commissioner appointments.

Remote Evidence and Virtual Depositions

Swiss courts have increasingly permitted the taking of evidence via video link, particularly following pandemic-era adjustments. Remote depositions require advance court permission, appropriate technical infrastructure and, typically, the consent of the witness. Data protection and cross-examination limitations apply.

Choosing the Right Route, Tactical Comparison for Taking Evidence Abroad in Switzerland

Selecting the optimal route is a tactical decision that depends on several variables: the urgency of the request, the nature of the evidence, the relationship between the jurisdictions involved, and the requirements of the court or tribunal that will ultimately use the evidence. The comparison table below provides a decision framework.

Decision-Tree Approach

Practitioners should work through the following logic when selecting a route:

1. Is the requesting state a Hague Evidence Convention Contracting State? If yes, proceed to step 2. If no, use letters rogatory or diplomatic channels.
2. Is speed critical and is direct evidence-taking feasible? If yes, consider Chapter II (commissioner or consular route), check whether FDJP prior authorization is needed under the 2026 declaration. If speed is less critical, proceed to step 3.
3. Is formal central-authority processing preferred or required? If yes, use Chapter I (Letter of Request via central authority). This is the default for most formal evidence requests.
4. Is remote/virtual testimony an option? If the court permits it and the witness consents, a remote deposition may supplement or replace a formal request, but verify canton practice first.

Example 1: A U.S. law firm needs testimony from a witness in Zurich for pending federal litigation. Both the U.S. and Switzerland are Hague Evidence Convention Contracting States. If the firm needs speed and control, it may seek to appoint a commissioner under Chapter II (with FDJP authorization). If the court prefers a formal Letter of Request, Chapter I via the Zurich central authority is the standard route.

Example 2: A Brazilian party needs documents held by a Swiss company. Brazil is not a Contracting State to the Hague Evidence Convention. The available route is letters rogatory through diplomatic channels, routed via the Swiss federal authorities and then to the relevant canton.

Hague Evidence Convention in Practice, Swiss Specifics

The Hague Evidence Convention Switzerland framework is the most frequently used mechanism for cross-border evidence requests. Understanding the Swiss-specific declarations, authorization requirements and procedural steps is critical to a successful request in 2026.

Switzerland’s Declaration and the 2026 Amendments

Switzerland’s declaration under the Hague Evidence Convention is recorded in the HCCH status table and notifications. The 2026 amendments refine the conditions under which evidence may be taken on Swiss territory by foreign officials or commissioners. Specifically, the amended declaration addresses Articles 15, 16 and 17 of the Convention, which govern evidence-taking by diplomatic officers, consular agents and commissioners respectively. Under the revised declaration, prior authorization from the FDJP remains required for evidence-taking under these Articles, but the conditions have been clarified and, in some respects, streamlined. Practitioners should consult the current HCCH notifications page for the precise text of Switzerland’s reservations and declarations.

Articles 15–17: Prior Authorization Requirements

The practical operation of Articles 15, 16 and 17 in Switzerland can be summarised as follows:

• Article 15 (Diplomatic officers). A diplomatic officer of a Contracting State may take evidence of nationals of the State they represent on Swiss territory, subject to FDJP authorization and without compulsion.
• Article 16 (Diplomatic officers, other nationals). Evidence may be taken from non-nationals under stricter conditions, again requiring FDJP prior authorization.
• Article 17 (Commissioners). A person duly appointed as commissioner may take evidence on Swiss territory. This is the most common Chapter II route used by foreign litigants. The 2026 declaration clarifies the documentation and authorization steps required.

The key practical change under the 2026 framework is that the authorization process itself has been made more transparent, with clearer guidance from federal and cantonal authorities on what documentation must accompany an authorization request.

Step-by-Step Checklist: Drafting a Hague Letter of Request (Chapter I)

To request evidence abroad through Switzerland under Chapter I, the following elements must be addressed:

1. Identify the central authority. The request must be addressed to the central authority of the canton where the evidence is located (not a federal-level body). Identify the correct canton and locate the current contact details via Swiss federal guidelines.
2. Complete the model form. Use the HCCH model Letter of Request form, including: identity and address of the requesting authority; nature of the proceedings and subject matter; description of the evidence to be obtained; names and addresses of parties; questions to be put to any witness (or statement of subject matter).
3. Translation. The request must be translated into the official language of the relevant canton (German, French or Italian). Certified translations are strongly recommended.
4. Special methods or procedures. If the requesting court requires a special procedure (e.g., examination under oath), this must be stated explicitly. The Swiss authority will comply if it is not incompatible with Swiss law.
5. Fees and costs. No advance fee is typically required for the execution of a Letter of Request in Switzerland, but reimbursement of certain costs (e.g., expert fees, interpreter costs) may be sought.
6. Submit via proper channel. The requesting judicial authority sends the Letter of Request directly to the Swiss canton central authority (not through diplomatic channels).

Sample wording (illustrative): “The [Court Name] respectfully requests the [Canton] authority to examine the witness [Name] regarding [subject matter].”

Chapter II Route, Explained

The Chapter II route under the Hague Evidence Convention in Switzerland allows evidence to be taken directly by diplomatic officers, consular agents or commissioners without routing through the cantonal central authority for execution. Instead, the key procedural gate is FDJP prior authorization. The advantages are significant: the requesting party retains greater control over the evidence-taking process, the examination can follow the procedural rules of the requesting state (within limits), and timelines can be shorter. However, the 2026 declaration makes clear that no compulsion may be used, and certain documentary requirements must be met before authorization is granted. Industry observers expect the Chapter II route to gain popularity as the clarified 2026 framework reduces uncertainty.

Letters Rogatory and Alternative Formal Routes in Switzerland

Where the Hague Evidence Convention does not apply, letters rogatory remain the principal route for requesting evidence abroad through Switzerland. This mechanism is governed by Swiss domestic law, bilateral treaties and general principles of international comity.

When Letters Rogatory Are Preferable

Letters rogatory in Switzerland are the appropriate choice in the following scenarios:

• The requesting state is not a Contracting State to the Hague Evidence Convention.
• The specific bilateral treaty between Switzerland and the requesting state provides for letters rogatory as the designated mechanism.
• The nature of the evidence or the procedural requirements of the foreign court make a diplomatic-channel approach necessary.

Practical Checklist for Drafting and Routing Letters Rogatory

1. Draft the letter rogatory. Include: identification of the issuing court; summary of the case and its legal basis; precise description of the evidence sought; names, addresses and roles of relevant persons; any special procedural requirements.
2. Translate. Into the official language of the relevant Swiss canton. Certified translations are essential.
3. Route via diplomatic channels. The letter rogatory is transmitted from the requesting state’s foreign ministry to the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), which forwards it to the Federal Office of Justice and then to the relevant cantonal authority.
4. Address the canton central authority. Once the letter rogatory reaches the cantonal level, execution follows cantonal practice. The Canton of Zurich’s Obergericht, for example, has published specific practice notes on how incoming requests are processed, including commissioner appointment conditions.
5. Follow up. Diplomatic routing can be slow. Maintain contact with the Swiss embassy or consulate in the requesting state and, where possible, engage local Swiss counsel to monitor progress at the cantonal level.

Sample address line (illustrative): “To the Central Authority for International Legal Assistance in Civil Matters, Obergericht des Kantons Zürich.”

Central Authorities, Canton Practice and Jurisdictional Practicalities

Switzerland’s federal structure means that the execution of international evidence requests is handled at the cantonal level. There is no single national central authority for Hague Evidence Convention requests. Each canton designates its own central authority, typically the cantonal superior court (Obergericht / Tribunal cantonal / Tribunale d’appello). This creates jurisdictional variation that practitioners must navigate carefully.

Practical tip: Always confirm the current contact details and any local practice notes by consulting the Swiss federal guidelines on international judicial assistance in civil matters (published by rhf.admin.ch) before filing. Canton practices can change, and the 2026 reforms have prompted several cantons to update their internal procedures.

Where a commissioner is to be appointed under Chapter II, the specific canton may impose conditions regarding the commissioner’s qualifications, the location of the evidence-taking and the involvement of local counsel. The Zurich Obergericht practice note, for example, sets out clear requirements for the appointment process and the documentation that must be submitted.

Timelines, Costs and Realistic Expectations for Taking Evidence Abroad in Switzerland

One of the most frequent questions practitioners raise about cross-border civil procedure in Switzerland concerns the time and cost involved. Expectations vary significantly by route, canton and the complexity of the evidence sought.

Tips to Accelerate the Process

• Pre-clearance with the canton. Where possible, engage Swiss counsel to make preliminary contact with the cantonal central authority before formal submission. This can identify potential issues early and speed execution.
• Bilingual filings. In bilingual cantons (e.g., Bern, Fribourg), submitting the request in both official languages can avoid translation delays at the cantonal level.
• Complete documentation. Incomplete requests are the most common cause of delay. Ensure every required element (model form, translation, description of evidence, questions for witnesses) is included on first submission.
• Chapter II for urgent matters. If time is critical, seriously consider the Chapter II commissioner route. The 2026 clarifications have made the FDJP authorization process more predictable, and early indications suggest processing times are improving.

Remote Evidence and Virtual Depositions, Practice Notes and Pitfalls

Swiss courts have permitted remote testimony and virtual depositions in appropriate circumstances, and the practice has become more common since 2020. However, remote evidence is not available as of right, it requires advance court permission and compliance with several practical requirements.

• Court permission. The party seeking a remote deposition must apply to the relevant Swiss court for permission. The application should explain why remote evidence is appropriate and confirm the technical arrangements.
• Technical requirements. A secure, court-approved video platform must be used. The connection must allow real-time audio and video, and the court (or commissioner) must be able to verify the identity of the witness.
• Witness consent. In most circumstances, the witness must consent to giving evidence remotely. Compulsion to testify remotely is generally not available.
• Data protection. Swiss data protection law (including the revised Federal Act on Data Protection, nFADP) applies to the transmission of evidence, particularly where personal data is involved. Cross-border data transfers must comply with applicable adequacy or safeguard requirements.
• Cross-examination limitations. Swiss courts may impose restrictions on cross-examination conducted remotely, particularly regarding the manner and scope of questioning. Practitioners should clarify permissible procedures in advance.

The likely practical effect of the 2026 CPC reforms will be to provide a clearer domestic-law basis for courts to authorize remote evidence-taking in aid of both Swiss and foreign proceedings. However, canton practice remains variable, and early engagement with the presiding court is strongly recommended.

Using Swiss-Obtained Evidence in Foreign Courts and Arbitration

Evidence obtained in Switzerland, whether through the Hague Evidence Convention, letters rogatory or a commissioner, can generally be used in foreign court proceedings and international arbitration. However, several admissibility and procedural considerations must be addressed.

• Admissibility in the foreign forum. The requesting party must ensure that the form and manner of evidence-taking comply with the evidentiary rules of the foreign court or arbitral tribunal. Evidence taken under Swiss procedure (e.g., judge-led examination without party cross-examination) may face admissibility challenges in common-law jurisdictions.
• Affidavits. Sworn affidavits are not a standard feature of Swiss civil procedure. Where the foreign tribunal requires an affidavit, special arrangements must be made, typically through a consular or notarial process.
• Certification and apostille. Foreign courts may require that Swiss-obtained evidence be certified or apostilled. Switzerland is a party to the Hague Apostille Convention, so apostille certification is available for public documents.
• Chain of custody. For documentary evidence, maintaining a clear chain of custody from the Swiss authority to the foreign tribunal is important. Request that the executing authority seal and certify the transmitted documents.
• Arbitration-specific considerations. International arbitral tribunals generally have broad discretion regarding evidence admissibility. However, the tribunal may scrutinise whether the evidence was obtained in compliance with the applicable treaty or procedural rules. Ensuring strict compliance with the chosen route protects against challenges to evidential weight.

Practical Toolkit, Checklists, Sample Wording and Filing Timeline

The following toolkit consolidates the key practical elements discussed in this taking evidence abroad practical guide. These resources are intended as illustrative starting points and should be adapted to the specific facts and jurisdiction of each case.

Hague Letter of Request, Quick Checklist

1. Identify the correct cantonal central authority
2. Complete the HCCH model Letter of Request form
3. Include: court identification, case summary, evidence description, witness details, specific questions
4. Provide certified translation into the canton’s official language
5. State any special procedural requirements (e.g., oath, specific method)
6. Submit directly to the cantonal central authority (no diplomatic routing needed)
7. Retain copies and confirm receipt with the authority

Chapter II Commissioner Application, Quick Checklist

1. Confirm that both states are Hague Evidence Convention Contracting States
2. Apply to the FDJP for prior authorization under Article 17 (or Article 15/16 as applicable)
3. Include: identity and credentials of the proposed commissioner; description of evidence to be taken; confirmation that no compulsion will be used; details of the location and date
4. Submit supporting documentation in the relevant canton language
5. Await FDJP authorization before proceeding
6. Coordinate with the cantonal authority (if applicable) and the witness

Sample Wording, Letter of Request (Illustrative)

“The [Court Name, Country] respectfully requests the assistance of [Canton Central Authority] in obtaining the testimony of [Witness Name] concerning [brief subject matter description].”

Suggested Filing Timeline (Chapter I)

For bespoke drafting assistance or tailored checklists, practitioners should engage qualified Swiss counsel experienced in international judicial assistance.

Conclusion and Next Steps

Taking evidence abroad in Switzerland in 2026 requires careful navigation of a reformed landscape. The amended Hague declaration, updated CPC provisions and evolving canton practices have collectively created a framework that is, in several respects, more transparent and efficient, but only for those who understand the new rules and plan accordingly. The core tactical decision remains: choose the right route (Hague Chapter I, Chapter II, letters rogatory or remote evidence), prepare meticulous documentation, engage canton-specific counsel early, and allow realistic timelines.

Practitioners handling cross-border civil evidence matters involving Switzerland should review their standard templates and procedures in light of the 2026 changes, consult the HCCH status table for the current text of Switzerland’s declaration, and confirm canton practice before each filing. Early engagement with qualified Swiss civil litigation counsel remains the single most effective way to avoid delays and ensure that evidence obtained will be admissible in the foreign proceedings.

Sources

1. HCCH, Status Table / Declaration & Notifications for Hague Evidence Convention
2. Swiss Federal Guidelines: International Judicial Assistance in Civil Matters (rhf.admin.ch)
3. U.S. Embassy, Obtaining Evidence in Switzerland
4. Gerichte Zurich, Commissioner Conditions / Canton Central Authority Practice Note
5. Lenz & Staehelin, Practice Note on Taking Evidence in Switzerland (2025–2026)
6. LALIVE, The Hague Evidence Convention’s Chapter II Route in Switzerland
7. Orrick, Depositions in Switzerland: How to Depose a Witness for U.S. Litigation