Article 271 of the BC sets out the conditions under which an attachment can be granted by a Swiss court. In general, the claim for which attachment is sought must be unsecured and matured.

Assets belonging to the debtor can be attached in any of the following situations (Article 271, BC):

There has been a lot of discussion relating to the interpretation of the "close connection" prerequisite for attachment requests against debtors residing outside Switzerland (Article 271, paragraph 1, number 4, BC) (see above). There is a substantial body of jurisprudence dealing with this and Swiss courts interpret this requirement quite broadly. However, it is clear that the mere fact of assets being located within Switzerland does not establish the required connection. There must be other factors with a connection with Switzerland, such as:

The decisions are usually fact-driven and it is difficult to predict the outcome with certainty.

The courts are competent to issue attachment orders if attachable assets are effectively located on Swiss territory. The court where the assets are actually located has jurisdiction. However, the situation is more complicated if assets of a particular debtor are located in different cantons (for example, in the city of Zurich and in the city of Geneva). In this case, the creditor must bring separate attachment requests in the courts with jurisdiction in each canton. This is cumbersome, costly and requires perfect co-ordination.

The situation is often difficult to understand, especially for a foreign creditor. For example, if assets are present in two cities within the same canton, such as Zurich and Winterthur, the creditor must file two attachment requests, one before the Zurich District Court and the other before the Winterthur District Court. To a certain extent this will change under the new law (see below, The new rules relating to attachments - additional opportunities for creditors: Change to jurisdiction).

The location of physical assets such as real or movable property is hardly ever a problem because this can be easily ascertained. The situation is more complicated in relation to monetary or contractual claims. For the purpose of attachment requests, the Swiss courts have developed a practice through which monetary and contractual claims are deemed to be located at the debtor's domicile or seat. (For information on how assets, in particular claims, "belonging" to a foreign branch office are treated for attachment purposes, see Attachments relating to accounts managed by foreign branch offices of Swiss banks.)

Another topic of debate is whether attachments are the correct remedy to implement the requirements of Article 47 (previously Article 39) of the revised Lugano Convention or whether provisional seizures mechanisms (Article 83, paragraph 1, BC) should be used. While most cantons in the past opted for the attachment procedure, there is no uniformity within Switzerland. The situation will change substantially when the revised Lugano Convention enters into force on 1 January 2011 (see below, The new rules relating to attachments - additional opportunities for creditors).

The BC now explicitly states that attachments are the security remedy provided for in Article 47 (previously Article 39) of the revised Lugano Convention. Therefore, there will soon be uniformity within Switzerland on this issue (see above, The current legal framework: Attachment or provisional seizure mechanism?).

A new ground for attachments has been added to Article 271 of the BC (see above, The current legal framework: Conditions for attachment). A creditor can now attach assets owned by the debtor, if he is in possession of a document allowing for the definitive setting aside of objections in debt enforcement proceedings (definitiver Rechtsöffnungstitel) (Article 271, paragraph 1, number 6, BC). These documents are, for example:

Even preliminary injunctions or freezing orders qualify as definitive setting aside documents, to the extent they are enforceable in Switzerland. The mere existence of a definitive setting aside document is sufficient to obtain an attachment, provided the assets owned or attributable to the debtor are located in Switzerland.

Article 271, paragraph 1, number 6 does not provide any further prerequisite or condition; for example, sufficient connection of the claim with Switzerland is not needed. For judgments and decisions issued by courts outside the reach of the Lugano Convention, such as US courts, prima facie proof of enforceability must be brought (for example, by presenting a written confirmation or certificate by the court which rendered the decision, an affidavit by a law professor or copies from legal commentaries). The existence of the claim is evidenced by the judgment itself. However, to obtain an attachment in relation to judgments of courts in one of the Lugano Convention member states, a creditor only needs to present both:

The new Article 271, paragraph 1, number 6 of the BC does not distinguish between Swiss or foreign judgments. Therefore, it will in the future be possible for a creditor holding an enforceable Swiss judgment to use attachments against his Swiss debtor. This represents a significant step in providing for much better creditor protection. As a consequence of the introduction of the new Article 271, paragraph 1, number 6 of the BC, Article 271, paragraph 1, number 4 of the BC has been amended to remove references to enforceable court judgments (see above, The current legal framework: Conditions for attachment).

The new provisions regarding enforceable judgments do not exclude the use of unenforceable judgments as a means to prove prima facie existence of a claim in an attachment proceeding against a person residing abroad.

Another new and significant feature has been introduced into Article 272 of the BC. In the past, attachment proceedings could only be launched in the court where the assets in question were located (see above, The current legal framework: Jurisdiction). This forces a creditor to bring multiple attachment requests if the debtor's assets are dispersed throughout Switzerland. The new law allows for attachment requests with effect in the entire Swiss territory, to be brought at the official venue for debt enforcement (Betreibungsort). The intention behind this change is to allow the judge dealing with enforcement applications to also issue attachment orders relating to such application. However, it must be stressed that these Switzerland-wide attachments cannot be granted by the courts where the debtor's assets are located.

The ordinary venue for debt enforcement is a person's domicile or a company's main seat (Article 46 et seq, BC). Debt enforcement proceedings relating to foreign persons or entities can be brought at the place of the foreign person or entity's permanent office in Switzerland, although only for debts incurred by that office. In addition, debt enforcement proceedings can be brought in Switzerland if a city within Switzerland was expressly chosen as a place of performance of contractual obligations, but the venue only exists for the claim for which performance in Switzerland was provided. Future court practice must clarify whether the latter venues (that is, the place of performance and permanent office in Switzerland) can be used for all attachment requests, irrespective of either: