An international relief organisation operating across several continents discovers that a programme country has recently become subject to Swiss sanctions. Its bank account in Geneva is under review. A supplier in Basel has frozen a pending payment. The organisation needs to continue delivering medical supplies – and it needs a legal pathway to do so within days, not months. What does Swiss law actually permit, and how does the authorisation process work?
Switzerland's State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO – the central competent authority administering Swiss autonomous and UN-derived sanctions) provides for humanitarian and NGO authorisations through its sanctions ordinances. As of June 2026, applicants must satisfy SECO that the activity serves a genuine humanitarian purpose, that the relevant goods, funds, or services are destined for an eligible end-use, and that the request is supported by documentation demonstrating programme scope, counterparty identity, and end-user controls. No figures exist in the verified registry for standard processing times; in our cross-border practice, applicants should treat authorisation timelines as variable and plan programme schedules accordingly.
This guide covers the governing legal basis and authority, the step-by-step application procedure, cross-regime comparison with OFAC, OFSI, and EU humanitarian tracks, the risk flags that stall or defeat applications, and when to involve sanctions counsel.
What is the legal basis for humanitarian authorisations under SECO?
Switzerland administers its own autonomous sanctions through ordinances enacted under the Embargo Act, supplemented by measures that implement UN Security Council resolutions. SECO – the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs – is the authority that receives, assesses, and grants derogations from those prohibitions. The humanitarian authorisation is a derogation mechanism, not a general permission: it permits an otherwise prohibited transaction specifically because the purpose is humanitarian.
The legal foundation matters in practice. Swiss autonomous sanctions and UN-derived Swiss sanctions operate under different instruments, and the derogation conditions are not identical across those two streams. An NGO seeking to make a payment to a programme counterparty caught by a Swiss autonomous measure must engage with the ordinance governing that measure. Where the counterparty is on the UN Consolidated List, the UN Security Council framework and any relevant UN Security Council committee guidelines also form part of the applicable analysis.
Switzerland's autonomous sanctions regime has developed in a pattern broadly aligned with EU restrictive measures, though Switzerland is not an EU member state and the legal instruments are distinct. Practitioners advising on Swiss matters must distinguish carefully between EU Council regulations – which apply to EU persons and EU-territory activities – and SECO ordinances, which govern Swiss-nexus activities. The two instruments often reach similar outcomes on humanitarian derogations, but their procedural requirements and the authority processing each application differ materially.
What this means for an NGO is that it cannot simply present an EU humanitarian licence to SECO and expect recognition. A separate application to SECO is required wherever the Swiss-law nexus is engaged.
Step 1 – Determine whether an authorisation is actually required
Before preparing any application, confirm that the proposed activity is in fact prohibited without a derogation. Not every transaction with a sanctions-affected country requires a specific authorisation: some Swiss ordinances contain standing exceptions or carve-outs for basic humanitarian goods, and the UN Security Council system provides certain humanitarian exemptions through committee decisions that may be self-executing under the relevant Swiss implementing ordinance.
The preliminary screening exercise should address four questions.
- Is the counterparty or programme country subject to Swiss sanctions, and under which ordinance specifically?
- Does the transaction fall within a standing exemption – for example, for food, medicine, or basic-needs goods – already written into that ordinance?
- Is the counterparty a listed person or entity, or is it an unlisted organisation operating in a sanctions-affected jurisdiction? The legal analysis differs between those two situations.
- Does a UN Security Council committee decision or humanitarian notification mechanism apply, such that the UN route should be pursued in parallel or instead?
In our experience, organisations frequently incur delay by submitting a specific-authorisation application when a standing ordinance exemption already covers their activity. Conversely – and more expensively – some organisations assume they need no authorisation when in fact the counterparty's ownership structure brings the transaction within a prohibition. Getting this threshold analysis right saves significant time.
Step 2 – Assemble the application file
Once the need for a specific authorisation is confirmed, the application file is the critical output. SECO's assessment is document-driven: the quality, completeness, and internal consistency of the file determines how quickly SECO can act and whether it can grant the derogation at all.
A well-structured SECO humanitarian authorisation file typically addresses the following elements, even where SECO's published guidance does not enumerate every item explicitly.
- Programme description – the nature of the humanitarian activity, the geographic scope, the beneficiary population, and the operational timeframe.
- Counterparty identification – full legal name, jurisdiction of incorporation or registration, and a description of the counterparty's role in the delivery chain.
- Sanctions nexus analysis – a clear explanation of which prohibition is engaged and why the activity cannot proceed without a derogation.
- End-use assurance – evidence, or a framework for ongoing verification, that funds, goods, or services will reach the intended humanitarian beneficiaries and will not be diverted to prohibited persons or purposes.
- Organisational credentials – registration documents, mandates, and where relevant, documentation from UN OCHA, the ICRC, or the relevant UN agency confirming the applicant's recognised humanitarian status.
- Financial controls description – the internal procedures the applicant uses to manage payment flows, monitor end-use, and record transactions for audit purposes.
The end-use assurance element is where applications most commonly fall short. SECO, like other competent authorities, is sensitive to the risk that a humanitarian authorisation could inadvertently facilitate a transfer of value to a prohibited person through a nominally humanitarian channel. Demonstrating genuine and verifiable end-user controls is therefore a prerequisite, not a supplemental consideration.
Step 3 – Submit to SECO and manage the review
SECO accepts humanitarian authorisation applications in French, German, or Italian – Switzerland's official administrative languages – as well as in English in practice, though applicants should confirm the current preference with SECO before submitting. Applications are submitted to SECO's sanctions unit, which coordinates with the State Secretariat for Foreign Affairs and other relevant Swiss authorities where the matter touches foreign-policy considerations.
The review is not purely administrative. SECO may seek clarification on the counterparty's ownership structure, the geographic scope of operations, or the adequacy of end-use controls. Responding promptly and completely to those queries is the most effective way to manage timeline risk. Incomplete or delayed responses are the primary driver of extended review periods in our cross-border practice.
Where the activity also engages a UN Security Council designation, SECO's assessment will typically await or incorporate the position of the relevant UN committee. NGOs operating in programme countries subject to UN measures should factor potential UN-committee timelines into their programme planning, particularly where payments need to reach programme partners within a defined window.
If a transaction has already been flagged or a payment has been frozen pending SECO's position, an early review of the file with counsel can preserve options that narrow as time passes. Contact Calder & Vance at info@caldervance.com for an assessment of the application or a review of a pending matter.
How does SECO compare with OFAC, OFSI, and the EU on humanitarian authorisations?
Cross-regime comparison matters because most international NGOs operate under Swiss law, EU law, and US law simultaneously – and a payment chain may require clearance from more than one authority before funds can move.
Under OFAC, the US approach to humanitarian authorisations relies on a combination of specific licences and general licences. OFAC maintains a series of general licences (standing authorisations permitting a defined category of transactions without a separate application) across different sanctions programmes that carve out humanitarian activities to varying degrees. Where a general licence does not reach the proposed activity, a specific licence (a case-by-case authorisation requiring a separate application) is required. OFAC processes specific-licence applications through its online licensing system, and published guidance sets out the information requirements in detail. The US regime's reach is also extraterritorial: a Swiss-registered NGO using US-dollar payments routed through US financial institutions may engage OFAC's jurisdiction even absent a US entity in the transaction structure.
OFSI in the United Kingdom administers a licensing regime under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act. OFSI maintains a humanitarian licence category, and the UK's approach – particularly following the introduction of humanitarian provisions in the relevant thematic regulations – has evolved toward a more structured general-licence mechanism for certain categories of NGO activity. The OFSI and SECO regimes are not interchangeable: a UK general licence does not substitute for a SECO derogation, and vice versa.
The EU approach operates through Council regulations and provides for humanitarian derogations within those instruments. Where an EU-law prohibition is engaged, the competent authority of the relevant EU member state handles the application. Switzerland, as a non-EU state, is not part of that system. An NGO with a Swiss operating entity and an EU entity must therefore manage two parallel application tracks if both legal persons are parties to the transaction.
The practical implication across all three regimes is that an organisation operating in a sanctions-affected country through a multi-jurisdiction structure should map the sanctions nexus of each legal entity and payment flow separately. A clearance obtained from OFAC does not satisfy SECO, and a SECO authorisation does not satisfy OFSI. In our experience, the most common cross-regime error is assuming that an authorisation from the primary-relationship jurisdiction covers the whole transaction chain.
What risk flags stall or defeat a SECO humanitarian authorisation?
Several risk factors recur across humanitarian authorisation applications handled before SECO and comparator authorities. Awareness of them at the outset – rather than after submission – is the difference between a smooth process and a protracted one.
Ownership and control ambiguity. Where a programme counterparty is an entity in which a listed person holds an interest, SECO must satisfy itself that the authorisation would not result in a benefit flowing to that person. Applications that do not proactively address ownership structure – with supporting documentation rather than assertions – invite follow-up queries that can extend the review materially.
Unclear geographic scope. An authorisation that describes the programme country broadly, without specifying the areas of operation and the delivery mechanism, gives SECO less basis for confidence about end-use. Specificity in the application reduces the scope for ambiguity that may require clarification.
Absent or vague end-use controls. As noted in the application-file section above, the end-use framework is the most frequent gap. Financial controls described in general terms, without identifying the specific monitoring mechanism, are regularly queried. Best practice is to attach or reference existing internal compliance documentation – grant-monitoring frameworks, partner due-diligence procedures, and payment-authorisation chains – rather than producing an ad hoc description solely for the application.
Failure to account for the currency and payment-routing dimension. A SECO authorisation addresses Swiss-law prohibitions. If the payment currency is US dollars and a US correspondent bank is involved, OFAC jurisdiction is engaged independently. NGOs that secure a SECO derogation but do not address the OFAC dimension may find that their Swiss bank cannot execute the payment because the bank's OFAC obligations are not satisfied. The two clearances must be managed in parallel, not sequentially.
Concurrent criminal-law considerations. Swiss criminal law contains provisions addressing financial flows that benefit prohibited parties. A SECO administrative authorisation does not in itself provide a defence under every criminal provision that might be relevant to a complex transaction structure. Where a transaction is unusual in structure or scale, early legal analysis of the full Swiss-law position – not only the SECO administrative track – is warranted.
When should an NGO or business involve sanctions counsel?
A threshold question is whether the activity is clearly covered by a standing exemption. If the legal position is unambiguous, a well-resourced compliance team may handle the submission without external counsel. In most cases encountered in our practice, however, the position presents at least one of the following features that benefit from early external input.
The counterparty's ownership or control structure is not transparent, or there is uncertainty about whether a listed person has an interest in the programme partner. The proposed transaction touches more than one sanctions regime simultaneously – Swiss law and US law, or Swiss law and EU law – so that parallel authorisation tracks must be coordinated. The organisation has previously dealt with the same counterparty under a different programme and wants to confirm that the earlier facts do not affect the current application. A payment has already been frozen and the organisation needs to assess the options for releasing it, including whether a VSD – voluntary self-disclosure (proactive reporting of a potential violation to the regulator) – is appropriate in any of the relevant jurisdictions.
The position above covers the standard case. Your facts – the counterparty, the programme country, the payment structure, the currency, the other jurisdictions in play – change the analysis. For a review of a pending SECO application or an assessment of your multi-regime exposure, contact Calder & Vance at info@caldervance.com.
Related practices
- Frozen account management under BIS/EAR – managing blocked accounts and access requests under US export-control rules
- Humanitarian authorisation under Singapore sanctions – step-by-step guide to MAS-regime humanitarian derogations
- Humanitarian authorisation under UAE sanctions – licensing procedure and cross-regime considerations for UAE-nexus NGO activity