On
this Page:
-
SWITZERLAND
DOUBLE-TAX TREATIES
- SWITZERLAND
TABLE OF TREATY RATES
- SWITZERLAND
OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
Switzerland
Double-Tax Treaties
Switzerland
has Double Taxation Treaties with about 70 other
countries. The general effect of the treaties
for non-residents from treaty countries is that
they can obtain a partial or total refund of
tax withheld by the Swiss paying agent. Although
the full amount of withholding tax is deducted
at source the difference can be re-claimed by
the non resident from the Swiss tax authorities.
Where there is no double taxation treaty in
place withholding taxes deducted in the foreign
jurisdiction on remittances paid to a Swiss
entity give rise to a tax credit in Switzerland.
No withholding tax is levied on royalties paid
to foreign beneficiaries. Profits repatriated
abroad by the Swiss branch of a foreign company
do not attract withholding taxes irrespective
of any double taxation treaty.
Treaty
abuse: A repayment of withholding taxes under
the terms of a treaty will be denied where there
has been "abuse". Abuse occurs when a foreign-controlled
legal entity which is resident in Switzerland
fails one of the 4 following tests:
-
The entity must have a reasonable debt/equity
ratio (generally the total of all interest-bearing
loans should not exceed 6 times the company's
equity);
-
The entity must not pay excessive interest
rates on debt (for the purposes of this test
the accepted rate varies from time to time);
-
The entity must not pay more than 50% of its
income as management fees, interest or royalties
to non residents;
-
The entity must distribute at least 25% of
the income which could be distributed as dividend.
Where
any one of the 4 tests are failed the portion
of withholding tax deducted and which is deemed
refundable under the terms of the treaty is
not refunded.
Additionally,
treaty provisions do not apply to dividends,
interest or royalties paid by a Swiss entity
to a German, Italian, French or Belgian entity
if the Swiss entity is wholly or partly exempt
from cantonal tax under the tax incentives applicable
to specific types of company (i.e. domiciliary,
holding, auxiliary, mixed and service companies).
See Offshore Legal and
Tax Regimes.
The
following are some of the countries which have
double-tax treaties with Switzerland:
- Albania
- Argentina
- Armenia
- Australia
-
Austria
- Azerbaijan
-
Belgium
- Belarus
-
Bulgaria
-
Canada
-
China
- Czech
Republic
-
Denmark
- Ecuador
-
Egypt
- Estonia
-
Finland
-
France
- Georgia
-
Germany
-
Greece
-
Hungary
- Iceland
- India
-
Indonesia
- Iran
-
Ireland
- Israel
-
Italy
- Ivory
Coast
- Jamaica
- Japan
- Kazakhstan
- Kirghistan
- Kuwait
- Latvia
|
- Lithuania
- Luxembourg
- Macedonia
- Malaysia
- Mexico
- Moldova
- Netherlands
- New
Zealand
-
Norway
- Pakistan
- Philippines
-
Poland
- Portugal
- Romania
-
Russia
- Serbia
-
Singapore
- Slovakia
- Slovenia
-
South Africa
- South
Korea
- Spain
- Sri
Lanka
-
Sweden
- Tajikistan
- Thailand
- Trinidad
& Tobago
- Tunisia
-
Turkmenistan
-
Ukraine
-
United Kingdom
-
United States
-
Uzbekistan
- Venezuela
- Vietnam
|
On March
13, 2009, the Federal Council announced that
Switzerland intends to adopt OECD standards
on administrative assistance in tax matters
in accordance with Article 26 of the OECD Model
Tax Convention. The decision will permit the
exchange of information with other countries
in individual cases where a specific and justified
request has been made. The Federal Council has
decided to withdraw the corresponding reservation
to the OECD Model Tax Convention and to enter
into negotiations on revising double taxation
agreements. It maintains, however, that Swiss
banking secrecy remains intact.
According
to the Swiss, the adoption of the OECD standard
will have no impact on the situation for taxpayers
resident in Switzerland. The right of the Swiss
tax authorities to access bank data under Swiss
domestic law is not affected by the decision,
stated the Federal Council's release. The Council
also stated that it "resolutely rejects
any form of automatic exchange of information."
The decision
that the Federal Council will be implemented
within the framework of bilateral double taxation
agreements. The greater scope for exchange of
information will only have practical effects
when the renegotiated agreements come into force.
In addition, adjustments must be made to the
agreement with the EU on the taxation of savings
income.
The Federal
Council laid out the following conditions for
its future policy on administrative assistance
in tax matters:
- Respect for established
administrative assistance procedures
- Restriction of administrative
assistance to individual cases (no fishing
expeditions)
- Fair transitional
solutions
- Limitation to taxes
covered by the OECD Model Tax Convention
- The principle of
subsidiarity in accordance with the Model
Tax Convention
- Willingness to eliminate
discrimination.
In
January 2007, Switzerland and Japan agreed to
take up bilateral negotiations regarding an
economic partnership and free trade agreement.
A joint study group whose aim it is to strengthen
economic relations between Switzerland and Japan
had, over the previous twelve months, undertaken
a feasibility study at the official level of
a comprehensive economic partnership and free
trade agreement between Switzerland and Japan.
In its report, the study group concluded that
such an agreement would significantly enhance
bilateral economic relations (trade in goods,
services, investment), and could strengthen
the competitiveness of firms in both countries.
Japan is Switzerland's third most important
trade partner (after the EU and the USA).
Also
in January 2007, Federal Councillor Doris Leuthard
signed the EFTA Free Trade Agreement with Egypt
and reported that "considerable progress"
has been made in negotiations regarding a free
trade agreement between the EFTA States and
Canada. EFTA ministers have also met with the
Indonesian Minister of Trade to discuss the
feasibility of a comprehensive trade agreement.
The other EFTA members include Iceland, Liechtenstein
and Norway.
In
February 2007, Ms Leuthard, who heads the Federal
Department of Economic Affairs (FDEA), led a
Swiss business delegation to Brazil with the
aim of improving access to the Brazilian market
for Swiss products and investment. The visit
was expected lead to the signature of a Memorandum
of Understanding between Switzerland and Brazil,
and the creation of a Joint Economic Commission.
Brazil is one of the few countries with which
Switzerland has so far had neither an investment
protection agreement nor a double taxation convention.
A
protocol to the double taxation convention between
the United Kingdom and Switzerland was signed
in London on 26 June 2007.
The
protocol will make some amendments to the existing
double taxation convention, dated 8 December
1977. The main amendments are the elimination
of taxation at source on dividends, where the
beneficial owner of the dividends has a substantial
participation in the payer or is a pension scheme.
The
protocol also amends the exchange of information
article. It provides that, in future, information
will be exchanged in cases of tax fraud or the
like, and in cases involving holding companies.
Measures
are also contained in the new protocol relating
to pensions. In future, lump sum payments may
be taxed only by the state in which they arise.
Also, pension contributions paid to a scheme
recognised for tax purposes in one country may,
under certain conditions, be deductible in the
other country.
Officials
from Turkey and Switzerland met in the Turkish
capital, Ankara in Mat 2008 to discuss matters
of a commercial and economic nature.
According
to a report from the Turkish Press, Turkey's
Deputy Undersecretary, Ulker Guzel and Switerland's
head of Bilateral Economic Relations, Monica
Ruhl deliberated over several subjects important
to both countries, including measures to increase
bilateral investment, disputed trade issues,
and various other matters.
An
agreement between Switzerland and Turkey with
the aim of eliminating the double taxation of
income tax was then signed in Bern on Thursday,
following bilateral discussions focusing on
budgetary and fiscal policies.
Negotiations
concerning this agreement began back in 1986.
The differing policies on agreements pursued
by each country explain why the process has
been so drawn out, and according to the Swiss
authorities, show "the determination of
the parties to reach a compromise".
To
a large extent this agreement follows the OECD
Model Agreement and Swiss policies in this regard.
The first
round of official negotiations for the revision
of the double tax avoidance treaty between Japan
and Switzerland were held in Bern from November
17 to 20, 2008. This was the first round of
negotiations for the revision of the treaty
since it was concluded in 1971.
In addition
to this, on September 29, 2008, the two countries
confirmed that agreement in principle had been
reached on the Agreement on Free Trade and Economic
Partnership (EPA).
Under
the trade agreement, both sides have agreed
to eliminate or reduce tariffs on industrial,
agricultural, forestry and fishery products
comprehensively. In addition, the agreement
contains provisions on non-tariff measures.
In
a statement on January 16, 2009, Doris Leuthard,
head of the Swiss Department for Economic Affairs,
announced that she would travel to Tokyo on
February 19 to sign the accord and finalise
the agreement.
It
was announced in November 2008 that Pakistan
and the Swiss Confederation had signed an updated
treaty for the avoidance of double taxation
which sets new withholding tax rates for dividend,
interest and royalty income.
Tax
officials from both countries met in Islamabad
on November 24, where they exchanged the necessary
Instrument of Intent to bring the Agreement
into force.
According
to the revised Agreement, companies with a 20%
participation in dividends will be taxed at
10%, with all other cases to be taxed at 20%
in the source country. The withholding tax rate
on interest, royalties and fees for technical
services will be 10%. Students with an income
of CHF18,000 or less will be exempt from paying
tax on their earnings.
At
the end of 2008, the French Prime Minister François
Fillon unveiled plans, not only to sign a bilateral
tax agreement with Switzerland, but also to
implement – on a bilateral basis –
the anti-fraud agreement established between
Switzerland and the European Union, even though
this agreement has not yet been fully ratified
by all member states.
Demonstrating
a marked softening of attitude, Fillon emphasised
his determination to forge ahead and foster
closer trade and economic relations between
the two countries, despite acknowledging remaining
differences in fiscal policy. Indeed, in a bid
to overcome these differences, both sides have
resolved to establish a working party, designed
to evaluate individual policies, and propose
a way forward.
Keen
to clarify that France does not regard its neighbour
as a ‘tax haven,’ Fillon did, however,
express his hope to persuade Switzerland to
comply with key regulations drawn up by the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
in terms of fiscal exchange of information,
and reaffirmed France’s determination
to take resolute action against any areas deemed
insufficiently regulated or transparent.
In December
2008, Micheline Calmy-Rey, Swiss Minister of
Foreign Affairs, visited Malta to sign a double
taxation avoidance agreement with her Maltese
counterpart, Tonio Borg.
The latest
statistics for 2007 show that imports from Switzerland
rose to EUR66.7m (mainly pharmaceuticals, jewellery,
electric machinery), while Malta’s exports
rose to EUR7.9m (mainly machinery and pharmaceuticals).
The
agreement will enter into force following ratification
by both countries.
The Protocol
amending the Double Taxation Convention between
Switzerland and the United Kingdom for the Avoidance
of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on
Income entered into force on December 22.
The most
important amendment to the Double Taxation Convention
of December 8, 1977 is the full exemption from
tax at source on dividends paid to a company
with a substantial shareholding in the company
paying the dividends, or to a pension scheme.
Full exemption
from tax at source will apply to dividend payments
between companies where one company holds at
least 10% of the capital of the company paying
the dividends. Dividend payments to pension
schemes will also be exempt from tax. For all
other dividend payments the state in which they
arise retains a residual tax rate of 15%, i.e.
any tax at source may not exceed 15% of the
gross amount of the dividends.
The Protocol
also contains new measures on the taxation of
pensions and deduction of tax on pension contributions.
In future, lump sum payments from pension schemes
may be taxed only by the state in which they
arise. Furthermore, pension contributions paid
in one contracting state will, under certain
circumstances, be tax-deductible in the other
contracting state.
In accordance
with Switzerland's commitments within the OECD
and towards European Union member states, the
Protocol extends administrative assistance to
holding companies and cases of tax fraud or
similar offences.
The
provisions of the Protocol are applicable to
Swiss taxes from January 1, 2009 and concerning
British taxes, from April 1, 2009 for corporation
tax and from April 6, 2009 for income tax. The
entitlement to tax credits in relation to dividends
paid by companies resident in the UK to residents
in Switzerland will be terminated for dividends
paid on or after April 6, 2009.
In March
2009, Swiss Finance Minister Hans-Rudolf Merz
announced that discussions into an OECD model
agreement with Japan were well advanced.
Merz explained
that Switzerland would initially sign treaties
with those countries of ‘primary’
importance to the Swiss economy. Japan, as a
crucial trade partner, bolstered by the signing
of a free trade agreement in February, and already
in discussions with Switzerland over the possibility
of a double tax agreement, naturally made it
‘top of the pile’, informed Merz.
Merz underlined
that Switzerland would also give priority to
countries who had expressed an interest on re-negotiating
an existing double tax agreement. Addressing
the proposed double tax treaty with the United
States, Merz announced that: “The United
States Finance Minister, Timothy Geithner, rang
to announce Washington's interest on March 13,
about five hours after the Swiss cabinet announced
its plan to ease banking secrecy.”
Speaking
to a press conference on March 25, Merz announced
that negotiations into the possibility of concluding
a revised treaty were underway but warned it
would not be a rapid process.
Elaborating
on Switzerland’s OECD standards adoption
plan, Merz underlined that negotiating an agreement
with the EU would be a long-winded process,
and therefore tackled later, but announced that
Switzerland would endeavour to conclude OECD
model agreements with Poland, the Netherlands
and Denmark in the foreseeable future.
Merz
added that negotiations were being dealt with
post haste but warned against countries expecting
further concessions. Merz emphasized that Switzerland
would only offer concessions where the same
was offered in return, welcoming particularly
better access for Swiss insurance firms in partner
countries. The Swiss Finance Minister did, as
ever, rule out concessions on the country’s
banking secrecy regime, reaffirming that Switzerland
would offer assistance in cases with conclusive
evidence, not ‘fishing expeditions’.
In
April, 2009, Switzerland announced that it is
to include Poland in the list of fourteen countries
with which it plans to conclude OECD model double
taxation agreements. It is understood following
Swiss Vice-President Doris Leuthard’s
visit to Warsaw, that an agreement with Poland
is foreseen in the near future. Swiss President
Hans-Rudolf Merz confirmed Poland, Japan and
the US’s position at the forefront of
Switzerland’s plans to conclude OECD standard
agreements with fourteen interested OECD member
states after a cabinet meeting on April 8.
Switzerland
and the US are to begin negotiations on a revised
double tax treaty on April 28. Switzerland is
expected to conclude its first OECD model agreement
with Japan as negotiations are currently at
an ‘advanced stage’. Switzerland's
first revised double agreement will be subject
to an optional referendum as announced by the
Federal Council on April 8, 2009. Negotiations
were expected to begin on April 28 in Berne,
Switzerland.
BACK
TO TOP
Switzerland
Table of Treaty Rates
The
rates shown are those of withholding taxes applied
to payments made by Swiss entities or persons
to non-resident entities or persons; a zero rate
applies to royalties.
| Country |
Dividends,
% |
Interest,
% |
| Paid
from Switzerland |
Paid
from Switzerland |
| Australia |
15 |
10 |
| Austria |
5 |
5 |
| Belgium |
10/15
(Note 1) |
10 |
| Bulgaria |
5/15
(Note 1) |
10 |
| Canada |
15 |
15 |
| China |
10 |
10 |
| Denmark |
nil |
nil |
| Egypt |
5/15
(Note 1) |
15 |
| Finland |
5/10
(Note 2) |
nil |
| France |
5
(Note 3) |
10 |
| Germany |
10/30
(Note 4) |
nil |
| Greece |
5 |
10 |
| Hungary |
10 |
10 |
| Iceland |
5/15
(Note 1) |
nil |
| Indonesia |
10/15
(Note 1) |
10 |
| Ireland |
nil/10
(Note 1) |
nil |
| Italy |
15 |
12.5 |
| Japan |
10/15
(Note 1) |
10 |
| Luxembourg |
nil/15
(Note 1) |
10 |
| Malaysia |
5/15
(Note 1) |
10 |
| Netherlands |
nil/15
(Note 1) |
5 |
| New
Zealand |
15 |
10 |
| Norway |
10/15
(Note1) |
nil |
| Pakistan |
15/35
(Note 5) |
15/35
(Note 6) |
| Poland |
5/15
(Note1) |
10 |
| Portugal |
10/15
(Note1) |
10 |
| Singapore |
10/15
(Note 1) |
10 |
| South
Africa |
7.5 |
35 |
| South
Korea |
10/15
(Note 1) |
10 |
| Spain |
10/15
(Note 1) |
10 |
| Sri
Lanka |
10/15
(Note 1) |
10 |
| Sweden |
nil/15
(Note 7) |
5 |
| Trinidad
& Tobago |
10?20
(Note 8) |
10 |
| UK |
5/15
(Note 1) |
nil |
| USA |
5/15
(Note 1) |
5 |
| Notes:
(1) |
The higher rate applies if the payment is
received by a company holding directly less
than 25% of the capital of the Swiss paying
company |
| (2) |
5% if the recipient is a company |
| (3) |
Only
20% is refunded (making the effective rate
15%) if non residents of France have substantial
interests in the recipient company, if the
recipient company controls at least 20% of
the Swiss company and if the shares of either
company are neither quoted at a stock exchange
nor traded over the counter |
| (4) |
The
30% rate applies to dividends from jouissance
rights, participating loans and silent participations.
Withholding tax shall not exceed the tax chargeable
on the profits out of which the dividends
are paid. |
| (5) |
The lower rate applies if the recipient is
a company which owns at least one third of
the voting stock in the Swiss company |
| (6) |
If
the recipient is an individual no refund
of the Swiss 35% withholding tax is granted |
| (7) |
The
zero rate applies where the payer is a corporate
shareholder which has a participation of
at least 25% for a continuous period of
at least 2 years immediately preceding the
distribution. 5% applies where the participation
requirement is satisfied but not for the
requisite period and 15% is the rate for
smaller holdings. |
| (8) |
The
lower rate applies if the recipient is a company
which controls directly or indirectly at least
10% of the voting power in the Swiss paying
corporation |
BACK TO TOP
Switzerland
Other International Agreements
Switzerland has passed its own mutual assistance
law, and is also a party to a number of international
mutual assistance treaties, some multilateral
and some bilateral, including the following:
- The
European Convention on Mutual Assistance in
Criminal Matters, 1959;
- Treaty
on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters with
the USA, 1973;
- The
Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance
in Criminal Matters, 1983, as amended in 1997;
- The
European Convention on Laundering, Search,
Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds of
Crime, 1993.
The Federal Act, particularly since the
1997 amendments, enables the transmission
of documents and information abroad for
the purposes of criminal proceedings. From
the point of view of banking secrecy the
following can be said about the current
situation:
-
According to a recent decision of the
Federal Supreme Court the transmission
of such information requires the permission
of the Swiss police authorities who must
inform the customer about the order and
give him a right to appeal;
-
It is not permitted to forward information
on persons who are not the subject matter
of the investigation;
-
Information will not be given if
-
The foreign authorities might use
the information for purposes other
than those for which it was requested;
-
The offence alleged is not equally
punishable in Switzerland;
-
The requesting state does not offer
Switzerland reciprocal treatment in
these matters;
-
The offence is related to tax, politics
or military matters.
The
Swiss authorities now grant administrative
assistance as well as judicial assistance.
Administrative assistance is regulator to
regulator contact as opposed to judicial assistance
which takes place between judicial authorities
within the scope of civil or criminal legal
proceedings.
The
Swiss Federal Banking Commission which regulates
banks, mutual funds, stock exchanges and security
dealers
is the regulator charged with rendering administrative
assistance. A number of conditions attach
to the granting of administrative assistance
by the Swiss Federal Banking Commission namely:
-
The foreign authority must be recognized
by the Commission as a supervisory authority
authorized to request administrative assistance;
-
The foreign authority may only use the information
for the purposes of direct supervision of
the institution concerned;
-
The foreign authority must be bound by official
or professional secrecy;
-
The foreign body can only re-transmit the
information under very restrictive circumstances.
This is called the principle of specificity
and means that information that was given
for the purposes of a criminal offence such
as drug dealing cannot be used in proceedings
for tax evasion. In practice the foreign
authority must confirm that it will not
so transmit the information unless required
to do so by a competent court against whose
decision it will appeal. Since the grant
of assistance by the commission is discretionary
if specificity cannot or was not guaranteed
future assistance may be denied though in
practice the commission is always eager
to be seeing to play its part;
-
If the information requested gives the name
of a client he must be notitfied and given
time to contest the decision;
-
There is a right of appeal to the Federal
Supreme Court.
In
2001 the European Union began negotiations with
Switzerland to attempt to gain agreement to
the information-sharing required as part of
the EU's withholding tax directive and without
which it will not be effective.
Switzerland
was politely helpful, offering to extend its
35% withholding tax on resident savings income
to non-resident account holders, and to distribute
much of the tax collected among EU member states,
but the government was adamant that it will
not shift on the issue of banking secrecy. The
Finance Minister, Kaspar Villiger confirmed
this, commenting frequently that: 'Banking secrecy
is not negotiable'.
Jean-Baptiste
Zufferey, a Swiss tax expert and professor at
the University of Fribourg expresses the situation
more bluntly: 'It's not because we fear banks
would lose business, but most Swiss people have
an attachment to the idea that a human being
is entitled to financial privacy. It is the
problem of foreign countries if they cannot
tax their citizens. We in Switzerland don't
have to help other countries do their job.'
This
posed a serious problem for the EU - not just
because the alpine jurisdiction is home an estimated
one third of the world's offshore wealth, but
because other countries, in particular Luxembourg
and Austria, had said that they would refuse
to back information exchange plans if Switzerland
does not participate. The EU had set the end
of 2002 as the deadline for final adoption of
its information exchange plans, but Luxembourg's
refusal to accept the Swiss compromise position
as acceptable meant that negotiations continued
into 2003.
After last-minute haggling by Italy and Belgium,
it was agreed by mid-2003 that the Directive
would enter into force in 2005.
The
Swiss banking fraternity certainly doesn't admit
to any regulatory weaknesses, and is up in arms
about what it sees as incorrect foreign attitudes
towards Swiss banking. We cannot have
a situation where people claim that in Switzerland,
control weaknesses supposedly keep occurring,
Urs Roth, chief executive of the Swiss Bankers
Association told an August, 2003 seminar.
"Where
Switzerland has excessive regulation compared
with the foreign competition, nothing is done
about it. In the long run this may produce a
widening gap that could be very damaging for
our banks and therefore our economy," warned
Roth.
In
January, 2004, Switzerland and the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development reached
a long-awaited compromise deal over certain
Swiss tax practices deemed harmful by the OECD.
Following two days of discussions with the Paris-based
organisation’s fiscal affairs committee, Swiss
officials agreed to exchange information with
other countries on Swiss holding companies,
one of a number of issues that has dogged the
relationship between Switzerland and the OECD
in recent years.
Wilhelm Jaggi, Switzerland's ambassador to the
OECD, stated that the agreement represents a
“good and balanced solution for all sides."
However, he was keen to emphasise that the issue
remains entirely separate from the more delicate
matter of banking confidentiality.
The two parties also managed to resolve another
sticking point involving the issue of administrative
notes on how taxable profits are defined by
firms. But a third tax issue concerned with
the method by which commercial expenses are
deducted from tax statements remains unresolved.
Further agreement was reached, however, in the
area of transfer-pricing, and the Swiss authorities
have agreed to warn domestic firms to abide
by OECD guidelines when transferring profits
to subsidiary companies.
It has also emerged that the OECD is to undertake
further analysis of the tax regimes under which
Swiss finance and leasing companies operate.
In
May, 2004, agreement was provisionally reached
with Switzerland over the implementation of
the EU Savings Tax Directive. The Swiss government
had agreed the text of the Directive, but refused
to sign it until assurances were given by the
European authorities that the Schengen agreement
on cross-border crime would not force it to
compromise its banking secrecy by reporting
on tax evasion, which is not a crime in Switzerland.
The
agreed compromise is that Switzerland will provide
legal assistance under the terms of the Schengen
agreement in cases relating to indirect taxes
such as customs, VAT, and alcohol and tobacco
levies, but will be exempted from providing
such assistances in cases of direct taxation.
Later
in the month, representatives from Switzerland
and the European Union signed the nine 'bilaterals
II' agreements covering various topics including
tax and the free movement of people. They had
been held up pending agreement on the Savings
Tax Directive.
The
agreements concern: the taxation of savings;
co-operation in the fight against fraud; the
association of Switzerland to the Schengen acquis;
participation of Switzerland in the “Dublin”
and “Eurodac” regulations; trade in processed
agricultural products; Swiss participation in
the European Environment Agency and European
Environment Information & Observation Network
(EIONET); statistical co-operation; Swiss participation
in the Media plus and Media training programs;
and the avoidance of double taxation for pensioners
of the Community institutions.
A
protocol to the existing agreement on the free
movement of persons was also signed, extending
the agreement to the new EU Member States.
Right
wing parties such as the Swiss People's Party,
opposed to the plans to cooperate more closely
with Brussels on security and other matters,
threatened to force a referendum on the issue,
but by November it was clear that the government
was going to be able to put through the necessary
implementing legislation with needing a referendum,
and the Savings Tax Directive duly came into
force in July, 2005, with Switzerland applying
a 15% withholding tax to the returns on savings
of EU residents.
The new Lugano Convention
on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement
of judgments in civil and commercial matters
between the the European Commission and certain
member states of the European Free Trade Area,
which includes Switzerland, was signed on October
30, 2007.
The
new agreement aims to align the Convention provisions
with the present European Community legal framework.
As a result of it, the rules for determining
jurisdiction of the courts will now be similar
in the EU and the EFTA States concerned. Moreover,
the judgments delivered by EU national courts
and those of EFTA Member States will be more
easily recognised and enforced.
In
November 2007, The Swiss Federal Council approved
bilateral framework agreements with the eight
European Union member states which acceded to
the EU in 2004.
It
was announced at the end of 2007, that Switzerland
has given Malta EUR1.8 million, under the bilateral
agreement which implements Switzerland’s
undertaking to provide cohesion funds to the
new member states of the EU, following its access
to the EU internal market.
The
individual bilateral agreements by Switzerland
with the ten EU member states which joined in
2004 follow the Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU) signed between Switzerland and the Council
of the European Union in February 2006.
This
MoU contained the overall conditions and modalities
agreed between Switzerland and the EU for a
financial contribution by Switzerland as a compensatory
measure to the latter’s participation
in the economic and social dimensions of the
EU internal market.
An agreement between
the Swiss Confederation and the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection
of Investments entered into force on August
9, 2008.
The core of the agreement
lies in the commitment of each contracting party
to protect and promote in its territory investments
of investors of the other contracting party
and in particular to provide these investments
National Treatment and Most Favoured Nation
Treatment.
An "investment"
is defined broadly under the agreement and means
every kind of asset invested in accordance with
the national laws of the destination country
of the investment. In addition, both countries
are committed to permit investors of the other
country free transfer of payments in connection
with an investment.
The
agreement also provides elaborate dispute settlement
mechanisms in case of disputes between an investor
and the host contracting party as well as between
the two contracting parties.
The Intellectual Property
Office of Singapore (IPOS) and the Swiss Federal
Institute of Intellectual Property (IGE) signed
a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on bilateral
co-operation in September 2008.
The signing ceremony,
which took place at the 45th World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) General Assembly
in Geneva marks the start of enhanced cooperation
between the two Offices.
The MOU establishes a
formalised framework to promote greater co-operation
and information sharing between IPOS and IGE.
It creates a platform to foster greater interaction
between the IP Offices and opens up more opportunities
for organising joint projects in areas of mutual
interest.
“We are very happy
to partner IGE to share knowledge and increase
the awareness of IP. We would like to explore
further collaborative opportunities with our
Swiss partner, particularly in IP capability
development, IP awareness as well as IP searches
and information services.” commented Ms
Liew Woon Yin, Director-General of IPOS.
Mr Felix Addor, Deputy
Director General of the Swiss Federal Institute
of Intellectual Property added:
“This
will strengthen ties between both our IP offices
to further facilitate and enhance collaborative
efforts, particularly in the sharing of knowledge
and experiences, as well as joint activities
at the national and international level."
On
October 10, 2008, Federal Councillor Doris Leuthard
and then US Trade Representative Susan Schwab
signed a joint declaration on e-commerce in
Washington, D.C. The declaration envisages cooperation
between Switzerland and the USA with a view
to improving trade conditions for e-commerce.
In the joint declaration,
Switzerland and the USA state their intention
to facilitate and encourage electronic commerce,
prevent discriminatory measures, guarantee users
a higher degree of legal certainty and establish
the necessary climate of trust and confidence
for electronic transactions. The two parties
declare their desire to work together in this
regard within the World Trade Organisation and
other relevant international organisations,
as well as to continue their cooperation at
the bilateral level.
This
joint declaration on e-commerce was developed
under the Swiss-US Cooperation Forum on Trade
and Investment.
Venezuela's Vice Foreign
Minister visited Switzerland in November 2008
to discuss tackling trade barriers and bilateral
investment, and to sign an economic agreement
between the two countries.
The
framework agreement will form the basis for
the further development of bilateral economic
relations and for the participation of Swiss
firms in projects in Venezuela. It proposes
the creation of a mixed committee to serve as
a platform for bilateral dialogue on economic
affairs. The aim of the committee is to promote
co-operation between the two countries in areas
relevant to business and to discuss and tackle
jointly possible barriers to trade and investment
with the involvement of the private sector.
The Swiss Federal Department
of Economic Affairs announced in January 2009
that discussions will be launched later this
year with China to examine the feasibility of
a bilateral free trade agreement.
President Hans-Rudolf
Merz received the Chinese Prime Minister Wen
Jiabao on an official working visit on January
27 to discuss bilateral economic cooperation.
It was agreed that a Swiss-Chinese working group
on the feasibility of an FTA should begin work
in the second half of 2009 with the aim of deciding
on the commencement of negotiations at the earliest
opportunity.
A
new bilateral investment protection agreement
was signed during the meeting. This new agreement
replaces the existing one from 1986, which is
now outdated.
Vietnamese Deputy Prime
Minister Nguyen Thien Nhan and Swiss Vice President
and Minister of Economics Loris Leuthard met
on January 29, 2009, to discuss the possibility
of a free trade agreement between their respective
countries.
Leuthard
asked Vietnam to consider the possibility of
a free trade agreement with the European Free
Trade Area which consists of Switzerland, Norway,
Iceland and Lichtenstein, also proposing an
air route between Switzerland and Vietnam to
further boost investment and tourist cooperation
between the two countries.
The
European Council Secretariat on February 24,
2009, published provisional details of an anti-fraud
agreement between European Union Member States
and Switzerland.
The anti-fraud agreement's
aim is to counter fraud and other illegal activities
affecting the financial interests of both the
EU and Switzerland. It contains provisions relating
to administrative assistance and to mutual legal
assistance in criminal matters for the protection
of financial interests. Within the scope of
the agreement are indirect tax (VAT and excise
duties) and customs offences (including smuggling),
corruption and money laundering. Direct taxation
is excluded from the scope of the agreement.
Pending
ratification by all member states, the agreement
can be applied provisionally by means of a declaration
by contracting parties as foreseen in Article
44(3). By the terms of the said article, a contracting
party can apply at any time the agreement with
any other contracting party having made the
same declaration. Thus, since the European Community,
some member states and Switzerland have made
such a declaration, the agreement will be applicable
bilaterally between them as from April 8, 2009,
except for Germany for which it will be applicable
from April 9, Finland from April 15 and the
United Kingdom from April 20.
BACK
TO TOP
|