Summary: The Bilateral Agreements III introduce for the first time a parity-based arbitration tribunal for the resolution of disputes between Switzerland and the EU. The tribunal consists of three judges per side. For questions concerning EU law, it requests a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This mechanism replaces the previous Joint Committees as the sole dispute resolution instrument.
Previously, disputes over the interpretation or application of the bilateral agreements were handled in Joint Committees. These political bodies consist of representatives from both sides and decide by consensus. Where no agreement is reached, there is no binding mechanism for dispute resolution -- the issues in dispute remain unresolved [1][5].
This deficiency was a core element of the institutional gap that the Bilateral Agreements III are intended to close.
The parity-based arbitration tribunal consists of six judges -- three per side [5][7]:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| CH judges | 3 (appointed by Switzerland) |
| EU judges | 3 (appointed by the EU) |
| Chair | Rotation or by agreement of the parties |
| Qualification | Independent legal experts |
| Decision | Binding on both sides |
The role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the dispute resolution procedure is the most politically contentious aspect of the Bilateral Agreements III [7][8].
The CJEU is called upon when a dispute concerns the interpretation of EU law. In this case, it issues a preliminary ruling that is binding on the arbitration tribunal regarding the EU law question [5].
Example: If Switzerland and the EU disagree about whether a particular Swiss wage protection mechanism is compatible with the free movement of persons, and this question concerns the interpretation of an EU directive, the arbitration tribunal requests the CJEU's opinion on the interpretation of that directive.
| Function | CJEU | Arbitration Tribunal |
|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of EU law | Yes (binding) | No |
| Application to the case | No | Yes |
| Overall decision | No | Yes |
| Sanctions | No | Yes |
An in-depth analysis can be found in the chapter Disadvantages: "Foreign Judges".
| Model | Description | Application |
|---|---|---|
| Joint Committees | Political, consensus-based, no binding decision | Bilateral I/II (previous model) |
| EFTA Court | Own court of the EFTA states, follows CJEU case law | EEA/EFTA (Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein) |
| Bilateral III | Parity-based arbitration tribunal + CJEU preliminary ruling | New model (from 2026) |
| EU accession | Direct jurisdiction of the CJEU | EU Member States |
[1] FDFA (2026). Switzerland-EU Package (Bilateral III). Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. [Open Access]
[5] FDFA (2026). Fact sheet: Institutional elements. Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. [Open Access]
[7] EIZ Publishing (2025). Arbitration proceedings under the Switzerland-EU package. Europa Institut Zurich. [Open Access]
[8] UNSER RECHT (2026). Dispute resolution under the Bilateral III. Information platform. [Open Access]
[16] UNSER RECHT (2026). Bilateral III -- what is it about? Information platform. [Open Access]
Last updated: March 2026