Malta

The system for the enforcement of foreign judgments is typically segmented into two main approaches:

• Direct enforcement. This is based on reciprocity and treaty or other arrangements made between states. This method tends to be more straightforward and swifter, as the requirements and procedures for recognition and enforcement are usually more relaxed.
• Indirect enforcement. This occurs as a result of provisions in the local law of the state where enforcement is sought. This involves the plaintiff initiating a local legal action based on the foreign judgment itself, aiming to enforce it within the local jurisdiction. This regime is often described as more rigid.

In both scenarios, legislation must exist to authorise the enforcement; otherwise, treaty arrangements remain inoperative.

What are the main international treaties or conventions that apply?

The enforcement of foreign judgments in Malta is governed by a hierarchy of international and domestic laws. At the apex are EU Regulations, foremost Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast), which applies to legal proceedings instituted in civil and commercial matters in the EU (on or after 10 January 2015). For proceedings instituted before that date, the earlier Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 (Brussels I) remains applicable. Brussels I Recast (1215/2012) dispense with exequatur for intra-EU judgments. Similarly, the Lugano Convention 2007 (EU‑EFTA/Switzerland) governs judgments between Malta and EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland). Lastly, Council Regulation (EC) No. 4/2009: this specific EU instrument addresses jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, and enforcement of decisions relating to maintenance obligations.

Beyond the EU, Malta adheres to multilateral treaties, notably being a contracting party to 13 instruments:

• Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents.
• Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.
• Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters.
• Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
• Convention of 25 October 1980 on International Access to Justice.
• Convention of 1 July 1985 on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition.
• Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.
• 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.
• Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults.
• Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.
• Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance.
• Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations.
• Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters.

For arbitration awards, Chapter 387, the Arbitration Act (“the Act”), and the Arbitration Rules (Subsidiary Legislation 387.01) (“the Rules”) are the principal legislative instruments regulating arbitration in Malta. The Act is modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985, and the Rules are likewise modelled on the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules of 1976.

The Act also incorporates the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958, the Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses of 1923, the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1927, and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States of 1965 (the “ICSID Convention”).

The UNCITRAL Model Law is annexed to the Act as the First Schedule of the Act and forms an integral part thereof in its entirety. The Act has not yet been amended to reflect the later versions of the UNCITRAL Model Law, although reform initiatives on this front are expected.

Bilateral/regional agreements include the British Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Chapter 52, Laws of Malta, 1924), which provides a simplified registration procedure for money judgments from the UK and specified Commonwealth/colonial courts.

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

In the absence of any treaty or EU instrument, Malta falls back on its domestic law: Chapter 12, Title V of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (COCP), which governs the enforcement of “judgments of tribunals of countries outside Malta”. Article 825A of the COCP expressly makes Title V applicable only “in so far as they agree with” EU regulations, which take precedence. In practice, this means: if no treaty/regulation applies, Article 826 of the COCP allows enforcement of a res judicata judgment from a competent foreign court.

Under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012, judgments given in a Member State are recognised across the EU without any special procedure. Pursuant to Article 36(1), recognition is automatic, subject only to the limited refusal grounds in Article 45. To invoke a judgment, the relying party must produce an authentic copy and the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53. A translation is only required under Article 37(2) if the authority cannot proceed without it.

Enforcement also operates automatically, as Article 39 abolishes the requirement for a declaration of enforceability (exequatur). Under Article 41(1), enforcement is governed by the law of the Member State addressed under the same conditions as a domestic judgment. The applicant must provide the enforcement authority with an authentic copy of the judgment and the Article 53 certificate. Per Article 43(1), this certificate must be served on the debtor before the first enforcement measure, along with the judgment if not previously served.

Grounds for refusal under Article 45 are exhaustive and strictly applied. Recognition and enforcement must be refused if manifestly contrary to the public policy of the Member State addressed. Refusal is also permitted for default judgments where the defendant was not served in sufficient time to arrange a defence, unless they failed to challenge the judgment when possible.

Additionally, refusal applies if the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment between the same parties in the Member State addressed, or with an earlier judgment involving the same cause of action and parties from another state. Finally, enforcement may be refused if the judgment conflicts with special jurisdictional rules protecting weaker parties, such as consumers, employees, or insured persons or regulations on exclusive jurisdiction. Where these criteria are met, judgments circulate and are enforced automatically across Member States.

Specific requirements and defences

Under Article 45(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the jurisdiction of the court of origin may not be reviewed by the court addressed, and the court to which the application was submitted shall be bound by the findings of fact on which the court of origin based its jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding this general rule, recognition or enforcement must or may be refused in limited circumstances:

Exclusive jurisdiction (Article 24). Recognition or enforcement must be refused where the judgment conflicts with the rules of exclusive jurisdiction, such as those relating to rights in rem in immovable property, company law, or public registers.

Exclusive choice-of-court agreements (Article 25). Recognition or enforcement may also be refused where the court of origin exercised jurisdiction in breach of a valid exclusive choice-of-court agreement.

Protection of weaker parties (Article 45(1)(e)). Refusal is permitted where the judgment infringes the special jurisdictional rules designed to protect weaker parties, namely in matters of:

• insurance (section 3);
• consumer contracts (section 4); and
• individual employment contracts (section 5),

provided that the protected party was the defendant and the court of origin assumed jurisdiction contrary to those protective rules.

Recognition must be refused if a default judgment was issued without the defendant being served properly or in time to arrange a defence, unless they failed to challenge the judgment when possible.

To proceed with enforcement, the creditor must provide a copy of the judgment and the Article 53 certificate. Both documents must be served to the debtor before any enforcement measures are taken.

Enforcement is governed by the law of the Member State addressed (Article 41). This includes:

• limitation periods;
• prescription rules; and
• procedural deadlines.

Therefore, any time limits depend entirely on national law. Notwithstanding the latter, the grounds for refusal or suspension of enforcement under the law of the Member State addressed shall apply in so far as they are not incompatible with the grounds referred to in Article 45.

Recognition of a judgment under the Brussels I Recast gives it res judicata effect in the Member State addressed. The issues decided by the judgment cannot be relitigated, subject to the limited grounds for refusal listed in Article 45.

Malta follows the New York Convention (1958) for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, as incorporated by the Arbitration Act (Chapter 387). This Act provides a clear framework for the registration and execution of awards.

Part VII of the Act governs the process. Foreign awards within the scope of the Convention are enforceable in Malta upon registration by the Malta Arbitration Centre. Once registered, these awards are enforced by Maltese courts in the same manner as domestic awards. Under Subsidiary Legislation 387.01, the applicant must produce a certified copy of the award, the arbitration agreement, a certified English translation if applicable, and a sworn declaration confirming the award’s finality.

Recognition may only be refused if the respondent proves grounds set out in Article V of the New York Convention. These include the invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of capacity, or a failure to provide proper notice of the proceedings. Enforcement may also be refused if the award addresses matters outside the scope of the submission, if the tribunal’s composition was irregular, or if the award has been set aside by a competent authority in the country where it was made.

Additionally, recognition is refused if the subject matter is not arbitrable under Maltese law or if enforcement would be contrary to Maltese public policy. Decisions regarding registration are made by the Chairman of the Malta Arbitration Centre, subject to a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.

What court fees are payable?

Foreign arbitration awards (Arbitration Act, Chapter 387). The recognition and enforcement of foreign awards are governed by the Arbitration Act (Chapter 387) and Subsidiary Legislation 387.01. Under section 1.5 of Appendix A, the Malta Arbitration Centre (MAC) registration fee for foreign arbitral awards is equal to the fee payable for court proceedings for the same purpose, subject to a minimum of EUR 116.47. For international awards where no administrative services are required beyond registration, section 1.6(h) provides that the fee shall be 50% of the international filing table (a USD scale starting at USD 500 for claims up to USD 10,000). Consent awards registered under section 1.4 are charged at 50% of the standard domestic filing fee, with a minimum of EUR 116.47. Additional operational costs include a EUR 23.29 fee for physical service of documents (EUR 4.66 if electronic) and a EUR 34.94 registry fee for the registration of additional awards (section 1.7.1).

EU judgments (Brussels I Recast Regulation). Under the Brussels I Recast Regulation, EU judgments are enforceable in Malta without the need for an exequatur. The initial filing of the judgment and the required Annex I Certificate is subject to ad valorem registry fees under Tariff B of the COCP. If the creditor subsequently needs to enforce the judgment through warrants (e.g. freezing bank accounts), fees are then regulated by Tariff D of the COCP.

How long does the process take?

Foreign arbitration awards (Arbitration Act, Chapter 387). Under section 74(1), foreign awards become enforceable in the same manner as domestic awards once registered by the MAC. After registration, the award serves as an executive title, allowing for immediate execution. However, if the debtor raises challenges under the New York Convention, the process can be extended by several months.

EU judgments (Brussels I Recast Regulation). For EU judgments, the abolition of exequatur allows for direct execution. The timeframe is largely dictated by whether the judgment qualifies for automatic recognition. Uncontested cases move directly to execution, while those where a debtor applies for a refusal of enforcement under Article 45 may see significant delays.

Which court handles it?

Foreign arbitration awards (Arbitration Act, Chapter 387). The MAC is the competent authority for the registration of foreign arbitral awards. Once registered, the enforcement is executed through the Maltese civil courts using ordinary procedures applicable to domestic judgments.

EU judgments (Brussels I Recast Regulation). Judgments from EU Member States are automatically recognised and enforced through the ordinary execution procedures of the Civil Court, First Hall.

Non-EU judgments (Indirect Enforcement). In cases where EU regulations do not apply, Article 826 of the COCP governs enforcement. A foreign judgment constituting res judicata may be enforced by a Maltese court upon an application requesting that enforcement be ordered. The court must be satisfied that the judgment was delivered by a competent court and does not violate Maltese public policy.

When challenging an EU judgment in Malta, a distinction is made between challenging the validity of the judgment and challenging the execution of the warrants.

Challenging the judgment (Brussels I Recast). Under Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, a debtor may apply to the civil court to refuse enforcement based on Article 45 grounds, such as a manifest conflict with Maltese public policy, lack of service in default judgments, or irreconcilability with existing judgments. Per Article 44, this application does not automatically stay enforcement; however, the court may limit the creditor to protective measures or require security. Decisions on refusal are appealable under Article 49, with a final point of contestation possible under Article 50.

Challenging the Enforcement/Executive Warrant (Maltese COCP). Separately, the practical execution of warrants (such as a garnishee order or seizure) is governed by the COCP. Under Article 281 of the COCP, the person against whom an executive act is issued, or any interested third party, may apply to the court that issued the act to have it revoked, totally or partially, for any reason valid at law. The opponent has 10 days to file a reply (unless reduced by the court in urgent cases). According to Article 281(4), an appeal from the court’s decree may be entered by application within six days from the date the decree is read out in open court. To ensure efficiency, the law mandates that the Court of Appeal hear the case within one month and deliver a decision within three months. Notably, per Article 281(5), the usual security for costs typically required for appeals is waived in these specific instances.

Obtaining information about a debtor’s assets is challenging as Maltese law lacks a centralised discovery mechanism. Instead, the law provides specific tools to trace and freeze assets once a foreign judgment is recognised. Public and Land Registry searches allow creditors to identify immovable property without a court order.

Garnishee Orders under Articles 375 and 376 of the COCP are the primary tools for attaching assets held by third parties. Under Article 375, a creditor may attach money or movable property due to the debtor. Article 376 requires the application to state the debtor’s full name and identification details to ensure proper identification. The order prohibits the garnishee from delivering assets to the debtor and requires their lodgement with the registrar within 19 days. Lack of mandatory particulars renders the order ipso jure null.

Warrants of description under Articles 839 to 843 allow creditors to secure rights over movables via a detailed inventory compiled by a court marshal. Under Article 840, the marshal describes the items’ quality and number, and experts may be appointed for valuation. Per Article 841, the items remain with the possessor, who is legally responsible for their safekeeping.

Sanctions for non-compliance are stringent. Under Article 378, a garnishee failing to deposit property within 19 days becomes personally liable for damages. The court may also order the garnishee’s arrest for up to three months. Banks must declare all assets in their possession, with management remaining personally liable. Article 995 addresses contempt of court for obstructing a marshal, while Article 223 allows the Court of Appeal to award double costs for frivolous appeals intended to delay enforcement.

Under Maltese civil procedure, a creditor may seek precautionary acts (interim measures) to preserve assets or rights pending the outcome of substantive proceedings. The COCP expressly allows a person, under Article 829, without needing a prior judgment, to secure rights through one or more precautionary acts provided the statutory conditions are met.

Under Article 830(1) of the COCP, the following precautionary acts are available:

• Warrants of description and seizure of movable property.
• Warrant of seizure of a commercial going concern.
• Garnishee orders.
• Warrants of impediment of departure.
• Warrants of arrest of sea vessels and aircraft.
• Warrants of prohibitory injunction.

Domestic precautionary measures are generally limited to the territory of Malta. However, specific rules apply to their cross-border enforcement. Under Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, interim measures ordered by a Maltese court having jurisdiction over the substance of the matter are recognised and enforceable across other EU Member States without an exequatur. A significant restriction exists regarding ex parte warrants. Per Article 2(a) and Recital 33 of the Regulation, such measures only qualify for automatic EU-wide enforcement if the judgment or order containing the measure is served on the defendant prior to the enforcement taking place. Consequently, the “element of surprise” is often sacrificed when seeking to enforce a Maltese precautionary act in another Member State.

Under Maltese law, once a foreign judgment or award is recognised, enforcement is conducted via executive acts under the COCP.

Bank accounts

Enforcement is carried out via an executive garnishee order under Article 375 et seq. of the COCP. The order enjoins the bank from delivering funds to the debtor and mandates the lodgement of attached amounts with the court registrar within 19 days of service. Per Article 376 of the COCP, the order is null ipso jure if it lacks mandatory debtor identification particulars.

Shares

Shares are seized via a warrant of seizure under Article 282 of the COCP. Pursuant to Article 285 of the COCP, the warrant takes effect upon service to the company, rendering any subsequent transfers null. For securities at a central depository, service must also be made there. If a partnership’s statute provides a right of preference, Article 285(2) of the COCP requires other shareholders to be notified of the auction date to exercise that right.

Debts due to the judgment debtor from third parties

These are also enforced through an executive garnishee order under Articles 375 and 376 of the COCP. The order is served on the third-party debtor, prohibiting them from paying the judgment debtor directly under penalty of damages. The garnishee must deposit the funds into court within the statutory 19-day period.

Real estate

Real estate is enforced through a judicial sale by auction. Under Article 354 of the COCP, judgments from the Court of Magistrates are executed by the Civil Court, First Hall, when targeting immovable property. Article 315 of the COCP requires an appraisal by court-appointed experts, while Article 313 of the COCP mandates publication in two newspapers 15 days before the sale. Per Article 357 of the COCP, the adjudication allows the purchaser to seek a warrant of eviction if the occupant fails to vacate within one year.

Movable property

Physical assets are seized via a warrant of seizure under Article 282 of the COCP. Under Article 284 of the COCP, a court marshal compiles a detailed inventory of the items. Article 282 of the COCP empowers the court to appoint a date for the judicial auction and authorises the removal of items to a secure location. If the debtor resists, the officer is authorised to force entry into the premises to execute the warrant.

Maltese courts provide several mechanisms to enforce judgments against assets where the debtor holds a beneficial interest rather than legal title. Under the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, reinforced by the 2023 Court of Appeal ruling in Citadel Insurance plc v. Shield Services Limited, the court may disregard a company’s separate legal personality if it is being used in bad faith as an “extended arm” to evade obligations.

Assets held through nominee or prestanome arrangements are governed by fiduciary obligations under Article 1871A of the Civil Code. Since the debtor retains an enforceable right to the property, creditors can attach these interests using garnishee orders served on the legal owner. Creditors may also invoke the actio pauliana to nullify fraudulent transfers intended to shield assets from enforcement.

To aid asset recovery, 2025 regulatory updates now permit creditors with a “legitimate interest” to access beneficial ownership registers. Legal Notice 127 of 2025 amended the Companies Act to allow access to the Malta Business Registry for persons demonstrating an interest in preventing money laundering or predicate offences like fraud. Similarly, Legal Notice 133 of 2025 introduced this “legitimate interest” model for the Trusts Ultimate Beneficial Ownership Register administered by the Malta Financial Services Authority.

These updates transpose Article 74 of Directive (EU) 2024/1640 into Maltese law. Under these regulations, a person demonstrating legitimate interest can access the beneficial owner’s name, month and year of birth, country of residence, nationality, and the specific nature and extent of the beneficial interest held.

Maltese law permits enforcement against assets jointly owned by a debtor and a third party, but execution is strictly limited to the debtor’s specific undivided share (pro indiviso). In the case of joint bank accounts, a bank served with a garnishee order is legally bound to freeze the funds. Under the default matrimonial regime of the Community of Acquests, creditors must generally exhaust a debtor’s personal assets before enforcing against their 50% interest in the community property. When co-owned property is sold via judicial auction, the court ensures the process does not cause the non-debtor serious prejudice and targets only the debtor’s equity.

To protect their rights, any person with an interest may apply Article 281 of the COCP to have an executive act revoked, totally or partially, for any reason valid at law. This application must include all sustaining documents and is served on the opposing party, who has 10 days to file a reply. The court typically decides on the application within one month. A decree delivered under this article may be appealed within six days of being read in open court, with the Court of Appeal required to hear the case within one month and decide within three months of that hearing.