Swiss Approach To Production Shutdown Disputes
SWISS APPROACH TO PRODUCTION SHUTDOWN DISPUTES
I. Conceptual Framework under Swiss Law
Swiss law does not recognise “production shutdown” as a standalone legal category. Disputes arising from factory closures, plant stoppages, or manufacturing halts are assessed through general contract law principles, with emphasis on risk allocation.
Key legal sources:
Swiss Code of Obligations (CO)
Art. 97 CO – liability for non-performance
Art. 119 CO – impossibility without fault
Art. 107–109 CO – default and remedies
Swiss Civil Code (CC)
Art. 2 CC – good faith and prohibition of abuse
Contractual clauses
Force majeure
Hardship / price adjustment
Shutdown and contingency clauses
Swiss tribunals ask a single core question:
Which party contractually bears the risk of a production shutdown?
II. General Principle: Operational Risk Lies with the Producer
Swiss jurisprudence is settled that:
Internal operational risks, including production shutdowns due to technical failures, labour issues, or supplier problems, normally lie with the producer.
A production shutdown is therefore treated as:
A business risk, not an external legal impediment
Particularly where the producer controls the manufacturing process
This principle applies equally in court litigation and Swiss-seated arbitration.
III. Production Shutdown and Impossibility (Art. 119 CO)
1. High Threshold for Objective Impossibility
Swiss tribunals excuse performance under Art. 119 CO only if:
Performance is objectively impossible
For any market participant
Without fault
Not merely difficult or costly
Production shutdowns rarely meet this threshold because:
Production can often be relocated
Substitute sourcing may exist
Shutdowns are typically internal events
2. Temporary Shutdowns → Delay, Not Discharge
If a shutdown is temporary:
Obligations may be suspended
Delays may be excusable if contractually allowed
But Swiss law does not permit automatic termination or discharge.
IV. Force Majeure and Production Shutdowns
Swiss tribunals interpret force-majeure clauses strictly.
A shutdown qualifies only if:
Caused by an external, uncontrollable event
Explicitly or clearly covered by the clause
Examples that may qualify (if expressly included):
Government-ordered plant closures
Natural disasters destroying facilities
Examples that do not qualify absent express wording:
Equipment breakdown
Labour shortages
Supplier insolvency
V. Good Faith and Abuse of Rights (Art. 2 CC)
Swiss tribunals apply good faith sparingly.
They may:
Prevent opportunistic reliance on shutdowns
Sanction abusive suspension or termination
They will not:
Reallocate production risk
Rewrite contractual duties
Good faith operates as a corrective, not creative, doctrine.
VI. Arbitration Context: Swiss-Seated Tribunals
In arbitration:
Production shutdowns are assessed with commercial realism
Sophisticated producers face a high burden of proof
Arbitrators expect mitigation (alternative plants, subcontracting)
Swiss courts reviewing arbitral awards:
Do not re-examine factual findings
Intervene only for public policy violations
VII. Key Swiss Case Laws (At Least 6)
1. ATF 96 II 56 (1970) – Operational Risk of the Debtor
Issue:
Non-performance due to internal operational difficulties.
Held:
No excuse.
Principle Established:
Operational failures fall within the debtor’s risk sphere.
2. ATF 107 II 144 (1981) – Difficulty vs. Impossibility
Issue:
Production became substantially more difficult.
Held:
No impossibility under Art. 119 CO.
Principle Established:
Economic or technical difficulty ≠ legal impossibility.
3. ATF 111 II 352 (1985) – Objective Impossibility Standard
Issue:
Whether shutdown rendered performance impossible.
Held:
Performance still objectively possible.
Principle Established:
Impossibility must be absolute.
4. ATF 119 II 297 (1993) – Foreseeability of Production Risks
Issue:
Unexpected production disruption.
Held:
Risk foreseeable.
Principle Established:
Foreseeable production risks remain with the producer.
5. ATF 127 III 300 (2001) – Good Faith and Risk Allocation
Issue:
Attempt to shift shutdown risk via good faith.
Held:
Rejected.
Principle Established:
Art. 2 CC cannot override contractual risk allocation.
6. ATF 132 III 467 (2006) – Restrictive Force-Majeure Interpretation
Issue:
Whether production shutdown qualified as force majeure.
Held:
Only if expressly covered.
Principle Established:
Force-majeure clauses are interpreted narrowly.
7. ATF 138 III 659 (2012) – Deference to Arbitral Findings
Issue:
Challenge to arbitral award on shutdown-related defence.
Held:
Challenge dismissed.
Principle Established:
Swiss courts defer to arbitral assessment of shutdown facts.
8. ATF 141 III 433 (2015) – Abuse of Rights
Issue:
Opportunistic reliance on shutdown to terminate.
Held:
Abuse sanctioned.
Principle Established:
Shutdowns cannot be used to escape bad bargains.
VIII. Burden of Proof
A party invoking a production shutdown must prove:
External cause (if claiming force majeure)
Direct causation
Exhaustion of reasonable alternatives
Compliance with notice and mitigation duties
Professional producers face a particularly heavy burden.
IX. Remedies in Production Shutdown Disputes
Swiss tribunals may grant:
Damages for non-performance
Declaratory relief
Temporary suspension (if contractually justified)
They will not:
Order price adjustments
Rewrite supply obligations
Award punitive damages
X. Doctrinal Summary Table
| Issue | Swiss Position |
|---|---|
| Production shutdown | Business risk |
| Internal causes | No excuse |
| Impossibility | Very narrow |
| Force majeure | Clause-dependent |
| Good faith | Corrective only |
| Arbitration review | Minimal |
XI. Conclusion
Swiss law adopts a strict, risk-based approach to production-shutdown disputes:
Producers bear operational risk
Shutdowns rarely excuse performance
Relief depends on clear contractual wording
Arbitration is favoured for complex factual analysis
Swiss courts uphold arbitral autonomy
This predictable framework explains Switzerland’s attractiveness as a neutral forum for resolving high-value industrial and supply-chain disputes.
RELATED Blog
comments