SWITZERLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Philippe M. Reich, Kaspar Projer, Samantha Salsench and Anna Zellweger, Baker McKenzie Switzerland AG
Ring-fencing is also not applicable to sanctioned nat - ural persons (consideration 8.4.4). Judgment of 24 June 2025 of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (4A_95/2025) In its judgment of 24 June 2025, the Federal Supreme Court examined a dispute between a Swiss subsidiary of a Russian group and a Turkish company concerning the supply of specific chemicals. At the heart of the dispute was the failure to meet the binding purchase volumes that were to be ordered during the period from 1 March to 31 December 2022. The dispute arose against the backdrop of the inclusion of the rele - vant chemicals in Annex 20 to the Ukraine Ordinance, effective on 23 November 2022, which restricts trade in those chemicals and related services. Nevertheless, for contracts concluded before 24 November 2022, the relevant prohibitions only became applicable as of 4 February 2023. The appellant argued that the arbitral award violated substantive public policy ( ordre public matériel ) under Article 190 paragraph 2 of the Swiss Private Interna - tional Law Act (PILA) – which lists the grounds for appeal on which a claim may be brought in matters of international arbitration – because it required payment of claims allegedly prohibited under the Swiss and EU Russia sanctions regimes. Importantly, the court confirmed that the violation of a mandatory provision of Swiss law (such as Swiss sanctions) does not automatically amount to a breach of substantive public policy under Art. 190 paragraph 2 letter e PILA. This ground for appeal is not intend - ed to protect the Swiss legal order as such, nor to review the failure to apply or the incorrect application of (mandatory) foreign law. Consequently, the court concluded that the award was not incompatible with substantive public policy and dismissed the appeal. Judgment of 3 March 2026 of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (4A_454/2025) The case concerned PostFinance AG’s refusal to maintain a banking relationship with a Russian national resident in Switzerland who was subject to US and UK sanctions, although he was not sanctioned in Switzer -
land. The customer had been designated by the US authorities as a “primary financial facilitator” acting on behalf of his uncle, who has also been subject to Swiss sanctions since 2022. In December 2022, PostFinance opened a Swiss-franc account for the plaintiff but terminated the relationship only a few days later. It justified the termination pri - marily on the basis of the customer’s US sanctions designation and invoked an exception to its statutory universal service obligation ( Grundversorgung ). The Swiss Federal Supreme Court dismissed PostFi - nance’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Com - mercial Court of the Canton of Bern of 16 July 2025 (HG 23 72). The court confirmed that PostFinance must maintain the banking relationship, continue operating the plaintiff’s account in Swiss francs for domestic payment transactions of up to CHF15,000 per month for both credits and debits, and accept cash deposits of up to CHF15,000 for QR-bill pay - ments in favour of payees domiciled or resident in Switzerland. This judgment must be viewed against the consti - tutional and statutory framework governing Swit - zerland’s universal service obligation in the field of payment services. The Swiss Post is in this regard required to ensure an adequate, universal and afford - able basic supply of postal and telecommunications services throughout the country; this mandate also encompasses basic payment services (see Article 92 paragraph 2 of the Swiss Federal Constitution and Articles 1 and 32 of the Postal Act). PostFinance is entrusted with fulfilling this universal service mandate (Article 2 paragraph 2 of the Postal Ordinance [VPG]), which includes basic domestic payment services in Swiss francs to residents in Switzerland and excludes cross-border transfers in any currency (Article 43 VPG). Article 45 VPG contains the following excep - tions allowing PostFinance to refuse such services: • where national or international provisions relat - ing to financial market, anti-money laundering or sanctions legislation conflict the provision of the service;
267 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook