Germany

In Germany, the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments is governed by a combination of European Union instruments, international conventions and domestic law.

What are the main international treaties or conventions that apply?

At EU level, the most important instrument is Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis Regulation), which applies to civil and commercial matters and provides for the free circulation of judgments between EU Member States without any exequatur procedure. Judgments falling within its scope are recognised by operation of law and are enforceable in Germany upon presentation of the judgment and the standard certificate issued by the court of origin.

Depending on the subject matter and procedural context, further EU instruments may apply, in particular Regulation (EC) No. 805/2004 (European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims), Regulation (EC) No. 1896/2006 (European Order for Payment) and Regulation (EC) No. 861/2007 (European Small Claims Procedure). These instruments also provide for simplified or direct enforcement mechanisms within the EU.

Germany is a contracting state to a number of multilateral conventions, most notably the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (the latter having entered into force between the EU (except Denmark) and certain third states). Where applicable, these conventions take precedence over domestic law and provide a treaty-based framework for recognition and enforcement.

Germany has also concluded a limited number of bilateral treaties on mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments with certain states.

Germany is a party to the following EU and other multilateral legal instruments:

EU instruments

• Brussels Ibis Regulation (No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters).
• Brussels II ter Regulation (No. 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast)).
• Succession Regulation (No. 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession).
• European Enforcement Order Regulation (No. 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims).
• European Small Claims Procedure Regulation (No. 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure).
• Protection Measures in Civil Matters Regulation (No. 606/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters).
• European Account Preservation Order Regulation (No. 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters).
• European Order for Payment Regulation (No. 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure).
• European Insolvency Regulation (recast) (No. 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast)).
• Maintenance Regulation (No. 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations).
• EU Matrimonial Property Regulation (No. 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes).
• EU Registered Partnerships Property Regulation (No. 2016/1104 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships).

Multilateral conventions

• Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 30 October 2007.
• The Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters.
• The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.
• The Hague Convention of 2 October 1973 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Relating to Maintenance Obligations.
• The Hague Convention of 15 April 1958 concerning the recognition and enforcement of decisions relating to maintenance obligations towards children.
• The Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance.
• The Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children.
• The Hague Convention of 1 March 1954 on civil procedure.

What legal principles apply if there is no applicable international treaty or convention?

If no EU instrument and no international treaty applies, recognition and enforcement are governed by German domestic law, in particular sections 328, 722 and 723 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO)).

Under this regime, a foreign judgment is recognised in Germany if the requirements of section 328 ZPO are satisfied. Recognition occurs by operation of law, but enforcement requires a separate judgment of enforceability (Vollstreckungsurteil) by a German court under sections 722 and 723 ZPO. The German court does not review the merits of the foreign judgment, instead only verifying whether the statutory requirements for recognition are met.

In practice, this means that in non-EU and non-treaty cases, enforcement in Germany is a two-step process: the creditor first applies for a judgment of enforceability, and once that is granted, the creditor can proceed with execution measures under German enforcement law.

Where recognition and enforcement are governed by an international treaty, German courts will primarily apply the treaty rules. For the Lugano Convention, the Hague Choice of Court Convention and some bilateral treaties, additional rules may be found in the Recognition and Enforcement Execution Act (AVAG), which provides for an expedited proceeding. In case neither EU law nor international treaties apply (or if they leave room for the application of domestic law), German courts will apply German domestic law to the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment.

Enforcement in Germany requires that the statutory conditions for a judgment of enforceability (Vollstreckungsurteil) under section 723 ZPO are met. In particular:

• The foreign judgment must be valid and final, and not subject to appeal in the state of origin (section 723(2) sentence 1 ZPO). Interim measures and other non-final decisions are generally not capable of being declared enforceable.
• The foreign judgment must be enforceable in the state of origin. The creditor will usually need to provide evidence of this, for example in the form of a certificate of enforceability.
• The foreign judgment must be sufficiently specific (bestimmt) to be enforceable.
• Finally, the court must be satisfied that none of the grounds for refusal in section 328(1) ZPO applies (section 723(2) sentence 2 ZPO).

When deciding whether to grant a judgment of enforceability under sections 722 and 723 ZPO, the German court does not review the merits of the foreign judgment. It examines only whether any of the refusal grounds in section 328 ZPO are established. If one is, the foreign judgment will not be given effect in Germany. Those grounds for refusal are:

• The courts of the state of origin did not have jurisdiction according to German principles of international jurisdiction (section 328(1) No. 1 ZPO). In practice, this means that if German law would have allocated exclusive jurisdiction to German courts, a foreign judgment cannot be enforced in Germany.
• If the defendant did not appear in the foreign proceedings and was not duly served with the initiating documents, or was not served in sufficient time to enable a defence, recognition must be refused (section 328(1) No. 2 ZPO).
• If the foreign judgment is incompatible with a judgment rendered in Germany, or with an earlier foreign judgment that is to be recognised in Germany, or if it conflicts with proceedings that became pending earlier in Germany between the same parties and concerning the same subject matter (section 328(1) No. 3 ZPO).
• If giving effect to the foreign judgment would lead to a result that is manifestly incompatible with fundamental principles of German law, in particular core constitutional or procedural principles (section 328(1) No. 4 ZPO). This exception is applied narrowly and does not permit a review of the merits.
• If reciprocity is not guaranteed, meaning that judgments of German courts would not be recognised in the state of origin under comparable conditions (section 328(1) No. 5 ZPO).

If none of these refusal grounds is established, the court will issue a judgment of enforceability.

The recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Germany is primarily governed by the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, as implemented in sections 1061 et seq. ZPO.

Germany applies the New York Convention broadly. An application for recognition and enforcement must be filed with the competent Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht), or depending on the federal state, with the court designated in its place, such as the Highest Regional Court of Bavaria (Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht). The applicant must submit the original or a certified copy of the award and the arbitration agreement, together with translations if necessary.

The German court does not review the merits of the award. It only examines whether one of the grounds for refusal under Article V of the New York Convention applies. These include, in particular:

• incapacity of a party or invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
• lack of proper notice of the arbitration or inability of a party to present its case;
• the award deals with matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement;
• irregularities in the composition of the tribunal or the arbitral procedure;
• the award not yet being binding or having been set aside or suspended at the seat;
• non-arbitrability of the subject matter under German law; and
• violation of German public policy (ordre public).

These grounds are interpreted restrictively. The public policy defence is limited to fundamental principles of German law, including core procedural guarantees and basic values.

Once declared enforceable, a foreign arbitral award is enforced in the same way as a German court judgment under the general rules of German enforcement law.

A different regime applies to awards rendered under the 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention). Germany is a contracting state to the ICSID Convention. ICSID awards are not subject to recognition or enforcement review under the New York Convention. Instead, they must be recognised and enforced by German courts as if they were final judgments of German courts, subject only to the formal requirements of the ICSID Convention and mandatory EU law.

Court decisions

For exequatur procedures jurisdiction lies with the Regional Court (Landgericht) at the general place of jurisdiction of the debtor under sections 12 et seq., 722(2) and 802 ZPO, or alternatively the court in whose district the defendant’s assets are located under section 23 ZPO.

With respect to exequatur procedures under sections 722 and 723 ZPO, the fixed fee under No. 1510 KV of the Court Fees Act (Gerichtskostengesetz) is payable.

The typical timeframe for exequatur procedures is difficult to ascertain but may even take over a year.

Arbitration Awards

The Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) in whose district the application’s respondent has its registered office or habitual residence or where the respondent’s assets or the object claimed in the arbitration proceedings or affected by the measure are located, or alternatively the Higher Regional Court Berlin (Kammergericht), shall have jurisdiction to rule on applications for enforcement of foreign awards (Vollstreckbarerklärung) or the setting aside of the judgment of enforceability. In Bavaria, the competent court is the Highest Regional Court of Bavaria (Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht). The duration of applications for enforcement of foreign awards is highly dependent on how contentious the enforcement proceeding is and may take from a few months to over a year.

Decisions granting or refusing recognition or a judgment of enforceability can generally be challenged by the available remedies under German procedural law. For judgments under domestic law, this typically involves an appeal to the Higher Regional Court and, in limited cases, further review by the Federal Court of Justice.

A decision on the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award may be appealed to the Federal Court of Justice.

The judgment of enforceability is typically preliminarily enforceable. An appeal or challenge does not automatically stay enforcement. The debtor must usually apply specifically for a stay, and the court will decide whether to grant it, often against the provision of security.

German law provides several tools to obtain information about a debtor’s assets once an enforceable title exists.

A key instrument is the asset disclosure (Vermögensauskunft) procedure under the ZPO. The debtor can be compelled to provide a comprehensive statement of assets and income. This information is recorded and can be used by the creditor to identify enforcement targets.

In addition, creditors can request information from third parties in certain circumstances, for example in the context of garnishment proceedings against banks or other debtors of the judgment debtor.

If the debtor refuses to provide the required information or provides incomplete or false information, the court can impose coercive measures, including coercive fines and, ultimately, coercive detention. Entry in the debtor register may also follow, with significant consequences for creditworthiness. Intentionally false or incomplete information can entail criminal liability and give rise to civil claims for damages.

German law provides for interim measures such as seizure (Arrest) and preliminary injunctions (einstweilige Verfügung) to secure assets or claims pending enforcement.

Seizure can be used to secure monetary claims by freezing assets of the debtor within Germany, such as bank accounts or movable property. A preliminary injunction can be used to secure non-monetary claims or to preserve the status quo.

These measures are territorial in nature. German courts can order interim measures affecting assets located in Germany.

Once a foreign judgment or foreign arbitration award has been declared enforceable, it is enforced in the same way as a domestic German judgment under the ZPO.

Bank accounts

Enforcement against bank accounts is typically carried out by way of garnishment (Pfändung) and transfer order (Überweisungsbeschluss). The creditor applies to the enforcement court for an order attaching the debtor’s claim against the bank. Once served on the bank, the account is frozen up to the amount of the claim, and the attached amounts can be transferred to the creditor.

German law provides for certain protections for debtors, in particular for basic living expenses, which may limit the amounts that can be seized.

Shares

Shares and other securities can be seized either by physical seizure (for certificated securities) or, more commonly, by garnishment of the rights against the custodian or issuer. The enforcement court issues an attachment order, and the creditor can then seek realisation of the shares, typically by sale. The exact procedure depends on the type of security and how it is held.

Debts due to the judgment debtor from third parties

Claims of the debtor against third parties can be attached by garnishment. This includes, for example, claims against customers, business partners or banks. The enforcement court issues an attachment and transfer order, which is served on the third-party debtor. From that point, the third party must pay anything owed under that claim to the creditor rather than to the judgment debtor.

Real estate

Enforcement against real estate is carried out through registration of a compulsory security mortgage (Zwangssicherungshypothek) or through compulsory auction (Zwangsversteigerung) or compulsory administration (Zwangsverwaltung). These proceedings are conducted by the enforcement court with jurisdiction over the location of the property and are subject to detailed statutory procedures.

Movable property

Movable property can be garnished by a bailiff (Gerichtsvollzieher). The bailiff either physically takes possession of the items or seals them and arranges for their sale, typically by public auction. The proceeds, after deduction of costs, are applied to satisfy the creditor’s claim. Certain items are exempt from seizure under German law, in particular items necessary for basic personal and professional needs.

As a general rule, German enforcement law is formalistic and focuses on legal ownership. Enforcement measures are directed against assets that legally belong to the judgment debtor.

However, specific legal remedies may be available if assets are held by a third party in a way that constitutes mere nominal ownership or where the third party is obliged to transfer the asset to the debtor. This typically requires separate proceedings; for example to challenge sham arrangements or to assert that the debtor has a claim to transfer of the asset, which can then be attached.

Direct enforcement against assets that are only beneficially owned by the debtor but legally owned by a third party is not possible without first establishing, in appropriate proceedings, that the asset is legally attributable to the debtor or that the debtor’s claim to the asset can be seized.

If an asset is jointly owned, enforcement is generally limited to the debtor’s share in that asset. For example, in the case of co-owned movable property or co-owned real estate, the creditor can enforce against the debtor’s co-ownership interest, but not against the entire asset as such.

The practical effect depends on the type of asset and the form of co-ownership. In some cases, enforcement against a co-ownership share may lead to a sale of the entire asset with distribution of the proceeds among the co-owners. In other cases, the creditor may only be able to seize and realise the debtor’s share, which may be less attractive in practice.

The rights of the co-owner are protected, and enforcement measures must respect those rights under German property and enforcement law.