1. What is the current legal landscape for enforcing judgments in your jurisdiction?

Italy’s legal framework for the enforcement of foreign judgments rests on a multi-layered system of international and domestic instruments. As a Member State of the European Union, Italy is subject to Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (the Brussels I bis Regulation), which provides for the automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered in other Member States without any special procedure being required. Italy is further bound by the Lugano Convention of 2007, applicable to relations with Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, as well as by the Hague Choice of Courts Convention of 2005 and the Hague Judgments Convention of 2019, which entered into force for EU Member States on 1 September 2023.

In the absence of an applicable convention, the recognition and enforcement of extra-EU judgments is governed by Law No. 218 of 31 May 1995 on private international law. Under Article 64, foreign judgments are recognised automatically provided that certain statutory requirements are met, including: jurisdiction of the foreign court according to internationally accepted standards; proper service of process and respect for the rights of defence; finality of the judgment in the state of origin; absence of conflicting Italian judgments; absence of prior pending Italian proceedings between the same parties on the same matter; and compatibility with Italian public policy (ordine pubblico).

A defining feature of the Italian system is the prohibition against reviewing the merits of foreign decisions. The court entrusted with recognition may not reassess the facts, reconsider the evidence, or determine whether the foreign court correctly applied its own law.

2. What three essential pieces of advice would you give to clients involved in enforcing of judgment matters?

First: ensure full compliance with due process requirements in the original proceedings. One of the essential conditions for recognition under Article 64 of Law No. 218/1995 is respect for the rights of defence. It is crucial to demonstrate that the defendant was properly informed of the proceedings and had a genuine opportunity to participate.   Virtually all applicable instruments mentioned above – the Brussels I bis Regulation, the Lugano Convention, both Hague Conventions, and Italian general law – provide for refusal of recognition where the defendant’s procedural rights have been violated.

Second: prepare all required documentation thoroughly and from the outset. When Law no. 218/1995 applies, the application for recognition and enforcement must be filed before the Court of Appeal of the place where enforcement is sought, accompanied by the foreign judgment – duly legalised or apostilled as required – together with a certified Italian translation and documentation demonstrating that the judgment has become final and binding in the state of origin. Incomplete or deficient documentation will inevitably cause delays and may compromise the outcome of the proceedings.

Third: factor in the timeline and costs of enforcement. The duration of the recognition proceedings may span several months and is subject to appeal, while the enforcement phase varies significantly depending on the nature of the assets seized – ranging from a few months for bank account attachments to several years for real estate.  In addition, under Article 37 of Presidential Decree No. 131/1986, judgments on the enforcement of foreign decisions are subject to a proportional registration tax of 3%, which can have a substantial impact on high-value claims. Enforcement costs incurred by the creditor – including court costs, legal fees and taxes – may, however, be recovered from the judgment debtor.

3. What are the greatest threats and opportunities in enforcements law in the next 12 months?

The enforcement of judgments is entering a period of significant transformation, driven by the growing internationalisation of commercial disputes and the increasing interaction between private international law, EU law and public policy. One of the greatest challenges in the coming years will be the growing impact of geopolitical considerations on the enforcement of foreign judgments. As international tensions continue to shape the legal landscape, geopolitical factors are likely to play an increasingly significant role in determining whether and how foreign judgments can be recognised and enforced across jurisdictions.

A particularly important development concerns the interaction between the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and the EU sanctions regime. Recent legal developments suggest that Italian courts will be required to assess more carefully whether the effects of enforcing a foreign judgment are compatible with the fundamental principles of both the Italian and the European legal order. In this regard, one of the most significant issues currently facing practitioners is whether recognition and enforcement in Italy should be refused in respect of judgments issued by Russian courts ordering the payment of sums to Russian counterparties where such payment is prohibited under the European Union’s restrictive measures regime. Against this background, particular attention is focused on the pending judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Reibel (Case C-802/24), which is expected in the course of 2026. The Court’s ruling is likely to define the contours of a European concept of ordre public in sanctions-related matters. Should the Court endorse Advocate General Biondi’s Opinion – according to which EU restrictive measures form part of the public policy of the European Union and national courts are required to examine, of their own motion, whether foreign judgments and arbitral awards comply with the EU sanctions regime – it would establish a harmonised legal framework that significantly strengthens the position of parties seeking to resist the recognition and enforcement of decisions incompatible with EU restrictive measures.

At the same time, international business structures continue to grow in complexity. Creditors increasingly seek to recover assets hidden within multinational corporate groups. As a result, Italian courts are likely to face a growing number of applications seeking recognition of foreign judgments that extend liability beyond the nominal debtor, including judgments based on doctrines such as corporate veil piercing. Although Italian law does not recognise veil piercing as a general principle, its established mechanisms for addressing abuse of legal personality, together with the restrictive interpretation of the public policy exception, create a generally favourable environment for recognising well-founded foreign judgments while preserving fundamental procedural guarantees.

These developments also present important opportunities. The continued expansion of international instruments governing the circulation of judgments, including the Hague Judgments Convention 2019, together with the increasingly harmonised interpretation of recognition standards, is expected to facilitate cross-border enforcement and enhance legal certainty for businesses operating internationally.

4. How do you ensure high client satisfaction levels are maintained by your practice?

Maintaining high client satisfaction in enforcement matters requires combining deep legal expertise with a commercially focused and pragmatic approach. Enforcement proceedings frequently involve multiple jurisdictions, urgent asset recovery measures and complex procedural issues. Clients therefore expect not only accurate legal advice but also clear strategic guidance throughout every stage of the process.

Our practice places particular emphasis on developing tailored enforcement strategies from the outset of each matter, taking into account the client’s commercial objectives, the location of recoverable assets, the applicable international framework and the most efficient enforcement mechanisms available. Particular attention is devoted to anticipating potential challenges, including jurisdictional issues, public policy objections and procedural defences, thereby reducing uncertainty and avoiding unnecessary delays.

Given the increasingly international nature of enforcement proceedings, we also ensure close coordination between domestic and foreign counsel whenever multiple jurisdictions are involved.

Finally, our continuous monitoring of legislative developments, international conventions and emerging case law enables us to provide advice that reflects the rapidly evolving landscape of cross-border enforcement, allowing clients to manage legal risks proactively rather than reactively.

5. What technological advancements are reshaping enforcement of judgments law and how can clients benefit from them?

While enforcement of judgments remains fundamentally a legal process, technological innovation is increasingly enhancing the efficiency of cross-border enforcement strategies. The growing digitalisation of judicial procedures, electronic filing systems and online access to court records has simplified procedural aspects of recognition and enforcement proceedings.

Technology is also improving asset identification and recovery. Digital databases, electronic corporate registries and increasingly interconnected public records allow practitioners to obtain faster and more accurate information regarding corporate structures, ownership and potentially enforceable assets across multiple jurisdictions. This is particularly valuable where debtors operate through complex corporate groups or cross-border holding structures.

In Italy, technological innovation has also been accelerated by the recent Cartabia Reform (Legislative Decree no. 149/2022), which has further advanced the digitalisation of civil proceedings through the wider use of electronic filing, digital case management and streamlined online interactions between courts and lawyers. In the enforcement phase, technology also plays a crucial role through the mechanism provided for by Article 492-bis of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, which allows enforcement officers, upon judicial authorisation, to access a range of electronic public databases in order to identify the debtor’s assets more rapidly and effectively. By facilitating the location of bank accounts, employment relationships and other attachable assets, this system significantly improves the efficiency of enforcement proceedings and increases the likelihood of successful recovery for judgment creditors.

For clients, these technological developments translate into tangible benefits, including faster identification of enforceable assets and more efficient management of cross-border enforcement of judgments.