Italy - Market Insights

The evolving landscape of judgment and award enforcement in Italy

Enforcement of judgments and arbitral awards in Italy sits at the intersection of national procedural law, EU legislation and an increasingly dense web of international conventions. For cross-border litigants and transactional parties, Italy is not simply a jurisdiction where assets might be found, it is part of a sophisticated recognition-and-enforcement ecosystem that is more open and flexible than is sometimes assumed.

Italian law starts from a strong “pro-enforcement” premise. The guiding idea is that foreign decisions — whether judicial or arbitral, civil or commercial — should circulate as freely as possible, subject only to a limited set of safeguards: jurisdictional reasonableness, due process and public policy. This approach is evident both in domestic rules (notably Law 31 May 1995, No. 218) and in the way Italian courts interpret and apply EU regulations and now, the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention.

In essence:

• Italy offers multiple routes to enforcement; and
• the Italian legal system is strategically flexible, allowing parties to combine domestic, EU and conventional tools to maximise the chances of effective recovery.

Understanding how these routes interact is now a core competence in cross-border risk management.

The core domestic framework

Italian law on the effects of foreign judgments is centred on a flexible framework under Law No. 218/1995 (Articles 64–67). This framework is designed not as a closed, rigid system, but as an adaptable “default” regime that recedes where EU instruments or specific conventions apply and re-emerges wherever those instruments leave space.

Automatic recognition. A foreign judgment is, in principle, recognised in Italy without any prior court procedure. Once formalities are met, the decision:

• can be relied upon in Italian proceedings; and
• can be filed in public registers where appropriate.

A further procedure (exequatur) is required before a foreign judgment can be enforced (see below).

Conditions for recognition (Article 64 Law No. 218/1995) (all must be met):

• the foreign court’s jurisdiction is acceptable under Italian principles of international jurisdiction;
• proper service (under the foreign court’s rules) of the initiating document and no breach of fundamental defence rights;
• regular appearance in court or lawful declaration of default (under the foreign court’s rules);
• finality (res judicata) under the law of the country of origin;
• no conflict with an Italian judgment that has become final;
• no prior Italian proceedings between the same parties and on the same object already pending when the foreign case was commenced; and
• no effects contrary to Italian public policy (substantive or procedural).

Exequatur for enforcement. To turn a foreign judgment into an enforceable title in Italy, the successful party must:

• apply to the Court of Appeal (of the district) where enforcement is sought;
• ask the court to confirm that the Article 64 conditions (outlined above) are met; and
• obtain an exequatur order; the “enforcement title” then consists of the foreign judgment plus the exequatur.

This system is replicated, mutatis mutandis, for foreign arbitral awards via the Italian Code of Civil Procedure and certain conventions (notably the New York Convention), where the same themes recur: limited grounds for refusal, focus on due process and public policy, and a permissive baseline.

The Italian Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that both domestic private international law and EU instruments are premised on automatic recognition of foreign civil and commercial judgments, with refusal of enforcement considered exceptional. The Italian court seized for enforcement does not relitigate the merits; it verifies only:

• the jurisdiction of the foreign court (from an Italian perspective);
• fundamental procedural guarantees (especially service and adversarial process); and
• compatibility with Italian public policy and prior Italian judgments or proceedings.

The logic is anchored in:

• constitutional principles (Article 111 of the Italian Constitution): fair trial guarantees, rationalisation and certainty of legal situations; and
• European human rights law (Article 6 ECHR): mutual trust and effective judicial protection within a broader European judicial area.

Navigating EU instruments and international conventions

Whilst the default domestic recognition and enforcement regime is set out above, in matters where the EU or Hague regimes apply, the Italian courts will apply the applicable rules in those conventions to determine recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Understanding the interaction between these international and domestic regimes is critical to an effective enforcement strategy.

The Italian model is characterised by:

• plurality of sources: domestic law, EU regulations and multiple conventions all coexist, but cover different situations;
• non-exclusivity of domestic law: where conventions aim to facilitate circulation, domestic law can still be used if more favourable to enforcement; and
• non-exclusivity of conventions: subject to certain exceptions (including particular rules on immovable property under the Hague Judgments Convention), Italy is not required to refuse recognition just because a foreign judgment falls outside the conventional filters.

EU regulations. For many civil and commercial disputes, and in specific areas like family, maintenance, succession and matrimonial property, EU regulations provide self-contained regimes on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement.

Where these apply, the domestic provisions of Law 218/1995 are largely displaced. However, this does not mean a loss of flexibility; rather, EU law often provides even more liberal conditions for recognition and enforcement (e.g. abolition of exequatur in many intra-EU cases).

The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention. The 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters adds a new layer to Italy’s enforcement toolkit.

Key features for Italy:

• it applies in relations between Italy (through the EU) and current/future contracting states such as Ukraine, Uruguay, the UK, Albania and Montenegro (subject to entry into force dates);
• it covers civil and commercial matters (excluding matters such as family, succession, insolvency, defamation, data protection, IP and certain competition matters);
• it introduces “jurisdictional filters” (Articles 5–6) which determine whether a judgment must be recognised (e.g. defendant’s habitual residence in the state of origin; place of performance in contract; situs of immovable property; valid choice of court; participation without contesting jurisdiction); and
• it provides limited refusal grounds (Article 7): due process failures, fraud, public policy, conflict with prior judgments, and lis pendens

The Convention is non-exclusive (Article 15): except for decisions on rights in rem in immovable property (where recognition is tied strictly to the forum rei sitae), it does not prevent the use of more favourable domestic rules.

This means that a judgment that is not “eligible” under the Convention (because it fails the jurisdictional filters) may still be recognisable in Italy under Law 218/1995, provided the Italian criteria are met.

Strategic choice of route: a concrete illustration

Consider a contract between an Italian company and a UK company that contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the courts of Milan, Italy. Despite this, the UK company sues in its own courts. The Italian company is duly served, appears in the UK proceedings, and argues the merits, but does not effectively insist on the exclusive Italian jurisdiction clause to stop the UK proceedings. The UK court goes ahead, disregards the clause in practice, and issues a judgment in favour of the UK party. The UK company then seeks recognition and enforcement of this judgment in Italy.

Under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, this scenario falls squarely within Article 7(1)(d). That provision allows recognition to be refused where the proceedings in the state of origin were contrary to a choice-of-court agreement designating the courts of another state. Here, there is a clear exclusive choice for Italy, yet the dispute was decided in the UK. Even if other requirements of the Convention are met (civil and commercial matter, proper notification, etc.), the Italian court is entitled to refuse recognition of the UK judgment on the basis that the UK proceedings violated the exclusive jurisdiction agreement in favour of Italy.

By contrast, when the same judgment is examined under Italian Law No. 218/1995, the result may be in favour of recognition. Italian law does not replicate the Convention’s closed list of refusal grounds. Instead, it asks whether there is a reasonable connection between the dispute and the foreign forum, whether the defendant was properly served and had an effective opportunity to defend itself, whether public policy is respected, and whether there are conflicting judgments. In this example, the UK courts have a substantial link to the dispute (e.g. the UK company is domiciled there, part of the performance occurred there), the Italian company was duly served and fully defended itself, and there is no violation of Italian public policy. The lack of a jurisdictional defence before the UK court would be deemed tacit acceptance of jurisdiction pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 1, Law No. 218/1995.

Hence, a judgment that can be refused under Article 7(1)(d) of the Hague Convention might still be recognised domestically under Italian law.

For practitioners, the point is clear: in cross-border enforcement into Italy, always test both the conventional and domestic routes, and choose the one that offers the best outcome.