Italy

The legislation applicable to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Italy differs depending on whether the decision comes from a European Union (EU) Member State or a third country (non-EU).

What are the main international treaties or conventions that apply?

This matter is mainly governed by Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (known as “Brussels I bis”). This regulation applies to actions brought and public documents drawn up on or after 10 January 2015. The European system is based on the principle of mutual trust in the administration of justice between Member States. Regulation No. 1215/2012 reinforced this principle, establishing that “a decision given in a Member State shall be recognised in another Member State without any special procedure being required” (Article 36).

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

For judgments issued by courts in countries outside the EU, the relevant legislation is contained in Law No. 218 of 31 May 1995 (Reform of the Italian system of private international law), in particular, in Articles 64 et seq.

Italian law is also based on a principle of automatic recognition, which does not require a specific procedure to take effect. However, automatic effectiveness is subject to a series of requirements listed in Article 64 of Law No. 218/1995.

Outside the EU, Italy is party to several multilateral conventions governing the recognition and enforcement of decisions, including the Hague Conventions on Apostilles and Notifications. In addition, Italy has entered into numerous bilateral treaties with third (non-EU) countries to regulate the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments.

In the absence of applicable international treaties or conventions, and outside the scope of EU regulations, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Italy are governed by Law No. 218/1995.

A foreign judgment is recognised in Italy without the need for proceedings if:

• the court that issued it could hear the case according to the principles of jurisdiction applicable under Italian law;
• the document instituting the proceedings was brought to the attention of the defendant in accordance with the law of the place where the proceedings took place and the essential rights of the defence were not violated;
• the parties appeared in court in accordance with the law of the place where the proceedings took place or the default was declared in accordance with that law;
• it has become final in accordance with the law of the place where it was pronounced;
• it is not contrary to another judgment pronounced by an Italian court that has become final;
• no proceedings are pending before an Italian court on the same subject matter and between the same parties which began before the foreign proceedings; and
• its provisions do not have effects contrary to public policy.

The legal principles and defences applicable to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards follow a separate and specific regime from that provided for judgments of state courts. The matter is governed primarily by the New York Convention of 10 June 1958, on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, implemented in Italy by Law No. 62/1968, and by the implementing provisions contained in Articles 839 and 840 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The applicant is required to produce specific documentation, the absence or irregularity of which may preclude the examination of the request. Pursuant to Article 839 of the CPC and Article IV of the New York Convention, the following must be filed:

• the original award or a certified/authenticated copy;
• the original or certified/authenticated copy of the compromise agreement or arbitration clause; and
• a certified translation of these documents, if they are not written in Italian.

Article 840, paragraph 3, of the CPC establishes that recognition shall be refused if the party against whom the award is invoked proves the existence of one of the following circumstances:

• non-arbitrability of the dispute;
• it being contrary to public policy;
• incapacity of the parties or invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
• violation of the right of defence;
• ultra petita award (beyond the limits of the compromise);
• irregular constitution of the arbitral tribunal or proceedings; or
• a non-binding, annulled, or suspended award.

To commence proceedings, an authenticated copy of the judgment or arbitral award must be filed with the competent court, together with evidence of its finality and, if necessary, a sworn translation.

Court registry fees generally amount to a few hundred euros, although this may vary depending on the value of the judgment to be recognised. These are supplemented by translation costs, service of proceedings on the debtor, and legal fees, which are generally calculated on the basis of legal tariffs. If the application is successful, the creditor is entitled to recover these costs, in whole or in part.

The duration of the proceedings depends on whether the debtor opposes the request for recognition. In the absence of any dispute, recognition may be obtained within a few months. However, if the debtor objects, the proceedings may take significantly longer, potentially exceeding one year.

Regarding jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 30 of Law No. 150/2011, the competent court is generally the Court of Appeal in the area where the debtor’s assets targeted for enforcement by the creditor are located, since recognition becomes relevant for enforcement purposes. Where only recognition is sought, without the initiation of enforcement proceedings, jurisdiction also lies with the court in which the debtor is domiciled or has a registered office. Regarding arbitral awards, jurisdiction lies with the Court of Appeal of the place where the other party resides, or with the Rome Court of Appeal if that party resides abroad.

The possibilities of challenging a decision to recognise a foreign judgment are limited since the review is confined exclusively to the existence of the formal requirements for recognition (including, for example, violations of the right to a fair trial in the foreign proceedings, conflicts with prior Italian judgments, or the manifest lack of jurisdiction of the foreign court).

Following a challenge to a decision recognising a foreign judgment in Italy, the suspension of its enforceability may only be granted upon the filing of a specific application, provided that both a preliminary assessment of the merits of the opposition and the risk of serious and irreparable harm arising from the enforcement of the foreign judgment are established. This application must be made to the competent Italian court.

Once you have a judgment or enforceable title, the procedure begins with the creditor serving the debtor a payment order (atto di precetto) under Article 480 of the CPC, which grants the debtor a final term — 10 days — to comply voluntarily. If payment is not made, the creditor may initiate enforcement by requesting the intervention of the judicial officer (ufficiale giudiziario), as allowed by Article 491 of the CPC.

At this stage, under Article 492 bis of the CPC, the judicial officer may access the following registries for information and, together with the creditor, decides what kind of execution to begin first:

• public property registries (e.g. the land registry);
• the vehicle registry (Pubblico Registro Automobilistico);
• the bank account information (anagrafe dei conti); and
• the Italian National Institute for Social Security pensions and fiscal register (useful to ascertain if the debtor is working, is receiving a pension, or has other sources of income with fiscal impact).

The creditor or judicial officer may require the debtor to declare all assets that can be seized and their location. This helps ensure nothing is hidden or omitted.

Providing false information or failing to declare known assets when legally required can constitute a criminal offence under Italian law (similar to obstruction of justice). The debtor may face fines or possible criminal proceedings if the conduct is serious and intentional.

Before or alongside enforcement, to build a picture of the debtor’s financial situation, the creditor may use:

• asset investigations;
• commercial data searches; and
• public record searches.

Such a picture is useful to help form an accurate assessment of the likelihood of debt recovery.

In Italy, creditors can request interim legal measures designed to preserve a debtor’s assets or prevent dissipation while a dispute or enforcement process is ongoing.

Precautionary seizure (sequestro conservativo)

The supposed creditor can ask the court to order a precautionary seizure to freeze assets (movable, immovable, bank accounts, receivables) before final judgment if there is a real risk the debtor will dispose of them, making recovery impossible later. It requires:

• fumus boni iuris (a prima facie case that your right exists); or
• periculum in mora (risk of irreparable harm if action is delayed).

Precautionary seizure is one of the main asset-preserving tools for creditors prior to enforcement. It is rapid and not expensive but, if granted, will require a temporary execution on the asset with the relative cost.

Judicial seizure (sequestro giudiziario)

This is a judicial order that prevents the debtor from dealing with assets pending the outcome of the dispute. It is used more often in criminal proceedings than in civil proceedings.

Other measures

Although not strictly asset freezing, in civil interim relief proceedings, courts can grant other protective orders to stop actions that might reduce the value of the rights at issue (e.g. injunctions to prevent the transfer or disposal of assets).

Territorial limits: competent court for interim measures

In general, the court that has jurisdiction over the main claim (the underlying dispute) is also competent to grant interim measures.

If there is no main claim yet, a court in Italy can issue a precautionary measure in the location where the interim measure will be executed.

In particular, for enforcement and attachment of specific assets:

• Real estate (immovable property): the court where the property is located.
• Movable goods/personal property: the court where those assets are situated.
• Legal entities: the court of the defendant’s registered seat or place of business.

Please bear in mind that if the creditor seeks interim measures in Italy involving foreign parties or assets, Italian jurisdiction still depends on where the assets are located in Italy or where proceedings are filed, subject to EU cross-border rules where applicable.

The procedure begins with the creditor serving the debtor a payment order (atto di precetto) under Article 480 of the CPC, which grants the debtor a final term — 10 days — to comply voluntarily. If payment is not made, the creditor may initiate enforcement by requesting the intervention of the judicial officer (ufficiale giudiziario), as allowed by Article 491 of the CPC.

The enforcement could regard different goods of the debtor and have different cost and time.

Bank accounts

In Italy, garnishment of bank accounts through attachment of debts owed by third parties (pignoramento presso terzi) is regulated by Articles 543–554 of the CPC. It allows creditors to freeze funds held by a third party, typically a bank, on behalf of the debtor. When enforcement concerns current accounts, the creditor first serves the bank with a formal attachment order, and then notifies the debtor the same order. The bank must then block the available balance within legal limits relating to non-attachable sums. Frozen funds are later allocated by the court to satisfy the creditor, ensuring judicial supervision and transparency.

This is the most successful and quick procedure by which to recover the credit.

Shares

In Italy, the seizure (pignoramento) of corporate quotas in limited liability companies (S.r.l.) and corporate shares in joint-stock companies (S.p.A.) is a specialised form of movable enforcement that enables creditors to seize the debtor’s equity interests and convert them into liquid assets through a court-supervised sale or assignment process.

Seizure of S.r.l. quotas

For S.r.l. quotas, the key provision is Article 2471 of the Italian Civil Code (CC), which requires the creditor to serve the attachment order on both the debtor and the company. The attachment becomes fully effective only upon registration in the company’s quota ownership register (internal quota ledger or digital corporate record), which legally blocks any transfer, pledge, or alteration of the attached participation. Unlike enforcement on ordinary goods, the creditor does not automatically acquire administrative or voting rights. Those rights are either suspended or may be exercised only if the judge appoints a judicial custodian or expressly authorises their temporary use. Following valuation made by an expert nominated by the tribunal, the enforcement judge authorises the competitive sale, usually via auction or other transparent competitive procedures. After adjudication, ownership is transferred only when the company updates its internal register in compliance with the court’s allocation order.

Seizure of S.p.A. shares

For S.p.A. shares, the process depends on their form. If physical share certificates exist, the judicial officer performs attachment by seizing the certificates (Article 513, CPC). For dematerialised shares held through regulated securities accounts, attachment must be carried out as third-party garnishment (Article 543, CPC), serving the order on the authorised financial intermediary managing the debtor’s securities portfolio. Under Article 2352 of the CC, corporate rights attached to seized shares are split: economic rights (dividends, liquidation proceeds) may be intercepted directly, while governance rights (voting, attendance at shareholder meetings, management influence) can be exercised only if the court appoints a custodian or grants explicit judicial authorisation. The intermediary must freeze the securities account, preventing disposal.

Judicial assignment or sale

After attachment, the creditor may seek either sale or judicial assignment of the equity interest, depending on the circumstances.

It should be noted, however, that this kind of seizure is almost never used to recover the credit because it is a very long procedure with a substantial cost due to the need for expert intervention — both to assess the shares and then to manage the sale. Usually, the result is not satisfactory.

Debts due to the judgment debtor from third parties

In Italy, third-party attachment (pignoramento presso terzi) can target sums owed by your debtor’s own debtors, enabling indirect recovery. The creditor serves an attachment order under Article 543 of the CPC to the third party, who must provide a sworn declaration of the debt’s existence and the amount (Article 547, CPC). Once served, the third party is legally prohibited from paying the debtor directly. The enforcement judge verifies the claim and may issue an assignment order (Article 553, CPC) transferring the attached credit to the enforcing creditor. This mechanism ensures judicial oversight while converting inter-debtor obligations into recoverable assets.

This procedure, as well as the procedure against the bank, is the most useful way to achieve a positive result in no more than six months and with only one hearing before the tribunal. As soon as the third party receives the notification of the formal seizure, they are obliged to hold in custody the related sum of money until the judge assigns it to the creditor.

Real estate

In Italy, real estate attachment (pignoramento immobiliare) is the main enforcement tool for recovering large amounts of credit, allowing creditors to recover debts by seizing and selling a debtor’s immovable property. The procedure can last several years but is not so expensive and the result is usually positive, mainly for the bank which has secured the credit.

The process begins once the creditor holds an enforceable title and has served a payment order (atto di precetto). If the debtor does not pay, the creditor files an attachment request and the seizure is executed through notification of the attachment deed to the debtor and its transcription in the Land Registry (Conservatoria dei Registri Immobiliari) under Article 555 of the CPC. Transcription is essential: from that moment, the property becomes legally bound, and any subsequent transfer is ineffective against enforcing creditors.

After transcription, the creditor must file the request to continue enforcement within 45 days (Article 497, CPC), otherwise the attachment loses effect. The judge of enforcement (giudice dell’esecuzione) opens the sale phase and typically appoints an expert appraiser to estimate market value, verify property data, check occupancy status, and identify legal issues such as mortgages, easements, or building irregularities.

The court then orders the sale of the property (Articles 569–576, CPC), generally through a competitive auction, which, since recent reforms, is mostly conducted online via authorised sale platforms. If the auction fails, the judge may reduce the price and schedule new attempts, or authorise alternative competitive sale methods.

Once sold, proceeds are distributed following creditor ranking rules (Article 510, CPC), prioritising secured creditors (e.g. mortgage holders), deducting enforcement costs, and allocating the remaining sum to satisfy claims. If a surplus remains, it is returned to the debtor.

Movable property

In Italy, the enforcement procedure on movable assets is the first attempt to recover the credit because it is usually unsatisfactory but is the most effective deterrent for the debtor who intends to pay but it comes with significant difficulties. It is very quick, without significant cost.

The core act of the procedure is the seizure (pignoramento), regulated by Articles 513–521 of the CPC. The judicial officer accesses the debtor’s premises, identifies and lists the attachable assets, and draws up an official inventory. Under Article 514 of the CPC, certain items are exempt from seizure, including essential household goods and tools necessary for the debtor’s profession. Once seized, the assets are placed under legal constraint, meaning the debtor cannot remove, sell, or use them in ways that compromise the creditor’s rights.

Following the seizure, the creditor must file a request for the sale of the assets pursuant to Article 529 of the CPC. The court then appoints an appraiser when necessary (Article 518 bis) and authorises the sale through a public auction or, in specific cases, through private negotiation under Article 530 of the CPC. The sale is usually unsuccessful because few people are interested in buying storage seizures in the debtor’s house.

According to Italian law, enforcement by seizure is only permitted against assets that legally belong to the debtor. This general rule is set out in Article 2740 of the Italian CC, which states that the debtor is liable for their obligations “with all their present and future assets”. Therefore, the provision refers to assets that are formally owned by the debtor.

As a general rule, only assets that are registered in the debtor’s name in public registers (e.g. the land registry or the motor vehicle registry) or assets that are in the debtor’s physical possession and presumed to belong to them (unless proven otherwise — see Article 513 of the Italian CPC) may be seized.

Accordingly, a creditor may not commence enforcement proceedings against assets registered in a third party’s name.

Assets not registered in the debtor’s name may be targeted only if it is first established that the debtor owns them, either through declaratory proceedings to determine true ownership of the asset or as a result of one of the following actions:

• Action of “simulazione” (Articles 1414 et seq., CC). This is aimed at proving that the legal transaction by which ownership of the asset was attributed to a third party rather than the debtor is fictitious and that the parties intended to create different effects to those formally declared.
• “Revocatoria” action (Article 2901, CC). This enables the creditor to invalidate transactions carried out by the debtor in fraud of creditors, rendering the disposition ineffective and allowing the creditor to proceed against the asset to satisfy their claim.

Under Italian law, assets held in co-ownership may be subject to enforcement proceedings. The rules differ depending on whether the assets are divisible or indivisible.

In the case of divisible assets, the asset must be “divided” before it can be sold, and the creditor may only seek satisfaction from the remaining share owned by the debtor. In the latter case (indivisible), the entire asset will be sold, but the non-debtor co-owner is entitled to the portion of the sale proceeds corresponding to his original ownership share.

Non-debtor co-owners must be notified of the enforcement proceedings to allow them to raise any objections. During the enforcement process, they are subject to limitations on their ability to dispose of the jointly owned asset.