Enforce US Punitive Damages in Italy: 2026 Guide

The Italian Supreme Court's November 2025 ruling on California treble damages rewrites the playbook for anyone holding an American judgment against an Italian defendant — here is what every foreign creditor must now understand before filing for recognition

LANG: English (en) · AREA: Litigation & ADR in Italy · TYPE: Case note (court decision) · MODEL: Sonnet 5 · SEO 76/100 · Flesch Reading Ease 31 · QA translated

ABSTRACT: On 30 November 2025, Italy's highest civil court confirmed that a Californian judgment awarding treble damages under California Penal Code Section 496(c) passes Italy's public-policy test and can be enforced against Italian defendants. The decision — Italian Court of Cassation, First Civil Division, judgment no. 31244 of 30 November 2025 — builds on the landmark Joint Sections ruling of 2017 and sets a clearer roadmap for transatlantic creditors. Foreign companies, distressed-debt funds, and individuals holding US court awards against Italian-domiciled defendants now have a stronger, more defined path to Italian enforcement than at any prior point.

A Californian judgment, two Italian defendants, and a question that has troubled transatlantic litigators for a decade

Imagine winning a fraud case in a US federal court. The judgment is for over USD 21 million, of which more than USD 12 million represents treble damages awarded under a California statute. Your defendants are Italian nationals with assets in Italy. You have a piece of paper from San Francisco. Can you actually collect in Rome or Milan?

Until recently, the answer was uncertain enough to give pause. Italian courts had long treated punitive damages — awards that go beyond compensating the victim and are designed to punish and deter — with deep suspicion, viewing them as philosophically alien to a civil-law tradition where damages are supposed to restore, not punish. That suspicion has now been substantially displaced.

Nemo debet esse iudex in propria causa — no one should be judge in their own cause — and, by extension, no legal system should reflexively refuse to recognise another's valid judgments simply because they look different. Italy's courts are finally applying that principle in practice.

Can I enforce a US judgment in Italy?

Within the European Union, the Brussels I bis Regulation creates a seamless environment for reciprocal recognition, but those streamlined rules do not apply to American judgments. The United States is not an EU Member State, and there is no bilateral treaty between Italy and the US governing the mutual recognition of civil judgments.

Recognition and enforcement of non-EU judgments in Italy is governed by Articles 64 et seq. of Law No. 218 of 31 May 1995 — Italy's private international law statute, which sets out the conditions under which foreign courts' decisions take effect / become enforceable in Italy. This is the gateway every holder of a US judgment must pass through.

Pursuant to that statute, any judgment issued by a foreign court is automatically recognised in Italy without the need for a court order, unless the recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment is denied or resisted by the person against whom it is asserted. In practice, defendants almost always resist. That triggers the formal exequatur procedure before the competent Court of Appeal (in Italian, giudizio di delibazione), which is the Italian court that reviews whether the recognition conditions are met — without reopening the merits of the underlying dispute.

The procedure for formal recognition is provided for by Article 67 of Law 218/1995 and applies only where the counterparty fails to comply with the judgment or disputes it. In such a case, the enforcing party must apply to the court before the Court of Appeal asking it to ascertain that the prerequisites for recognition set in Article 64 are met.

Those prerequisites include: the foreign court had jurisdiction according to Italian private international law principles; the defendant was properly served; the judgment is final; there are no conflicting Italian proceedings pending; and — critically — the effects of the judgment are not contrary to Italian public policy (ordine pubblico). It is that last condition that made punitive damages so contested for so long.

Are punitive damages recognised in Italy?

The story begins in 2017. Recognition and enforcement of foreign punitive damages judgments in Italy is no longer considered anathema. In 2017, overturning its previous opposition, the Joint Sections of the Italian Supreme Court held that "the doctrine / concept of punitive damages of US origin is not fundamentally incompatible with Italian law" and laid down the conditions under which foreign judgments awarding non-compensatory damages may be recognised and enforced in Italy (judgment No. 16601 of 5 July 2017).

The Joint Sections — Sezioni Unite — are the Italian Court of Cassation's highest formation, convened to resolve conflicts of interpretation. Their rulings carry enormous precedential weight. The amount of punitive damages must be limited, and a decision of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Cassation represents a significant precedent which lower courts and subsequent judgments are likely to follow, in terms of which courts will be required to recognise and enforce foreign decisions implying a compensation of punitive damages.

The 2017 ruling, however, was a framework, not a green light. It said punitive damages could pass the public-policy test if three conditions were satisfied: the conduct attracting the sanction had to be legally defined (tipicità); the award had to be foreseeable in advance; and the quantum had to be subject to a defined upper limit. What the 2017 decision did not do was apply those criteria to a concrete award and say: this specific sum is enforceable.

That step was taken on 30 November 2025.

What is the Italian public policy test for foreign judgments? The November 2025 ruling explained

On 30 November 2025, the Italian Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment that further clarifies the Italian approach to the recognition of foreign judgments awarding punitive damages. The Supreme Court upheld the Rome Court of Appeal's decision to recognise a Californian judgment condemning two Italian nationals to pay treble damages pursuant to Section 496(a) and (c) of the California Penal Code for the misappropriation of assets from debtor companies in bankruptcy proceedings.

The Californian court, in a judgment dated 6 February 2020, had awarded the companies USD 21,176,199.00 in damages against two Italian defendants, comprising USD 6,084,277.60 in actual damages for asset misappropriation, USD 12,168,555.20 in treble damages pursuant to Section 496(a) and (c) of the California Penal Code, and USD 2,923,366.17 in prejudgment interest.

The Italian Court of Cassation — First Civil Division, judgment no. 31244 of 30 November 2025 (Cass. civ., Sez. I, sentenza 30 novembre 2025, n. 31244, ECLI:IT:CASS:2025:31244CIV) — then examined whether the treble damages element satisfied the 2017 framework's three conditions.

The Californian judgment had awarded treble damages pursuant to Section 496(c) of the California Penal Code, which, in relation to the offence of receiving stolen property under Section 496(a), provides that any person injured by a violation of that subdivision may bring an action for three times the amount of actual damages sustained, plus costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees.

The court verified the legality condition by confirming that in the Californian legal order the conduct attracting the sanction was clearly defined (typicality) and that quantitative limits allowing foreseeability of the award amount were established. The Supreme Court concluded that in the circumstances the punitive damages were based on a specific legal provision, enabling individuals to foresee both the awarding of punitive damages and their precise amount.

A first partial compatibility with the Italian legal order had already been recognised by the Joint Sections with judgment no. 16601/2017. With the latest judgment, the Italian Court of Cassation has specified that Italian civil liability does not have only a compensatory function but may also have a deterrent and sanctioning function.

Unlike in most common-law countries, where punitive damages are a common-law tool shaped entirely by judicial discretion, Italy's public-policy filter demands that punitive awards be grounded in a specific statutory text that defines the qualifying conduct, signals that a multiplied award is possible, and caps or formulaically bounds the quantum. That is precisely why a statutory treble-damages provision such as California Penal Code Section 496(c) — which specifies "three times the amount of actual damages" — passes the Italian test, while a purely jury-discretionary punitive award without a statutory multiplier would still face serious resistance. Foreign creditors who hold judgments from states where punitive damages rest on common-law judicial discretion rather than a clear statutory formula should not assume the November 2025 ruling covers their situation without careful analysis.

One important nuance identified by academic commentators: from the perspective of the proportionality requirement, the Supreme Court's statement that proportionality was assessed ex ante by the Californian legislator does not address whether the punitive damages awarded comply with the Italian standard of proportionality. The Court should have examined whether punitive damages amounting to USD 12 million — twice the compensatory damages of USD 6 million — meet Italian proportionality standards. Italian legislation and case law offer no clear guidance on what ratio between punitive and compensatory damages may be considered proportionate. The Supreme Court missed the opportunity to elaborate on this matter with the 2025 judgment.

This gap matters for future cases. A creditor seeking recognition of a US award where the punitive element is ten or twenty times the compensatory sum should expect that a future Italian court may revisit proportionality more rigorously than the November 2025 ruling did.

As the American legal scholar Lawrence Friedman observed of common-law damages: "The civil law is a mirror of society's values, not just its rules." Italian courts are now adjusting that mirror — but carefully, and on their own terms.

How long does it take to enforce a US court order in Italy?

The exequatur procedure before an Italian Court of Appeal follows summary proceedings (procedimento semplificato di cognizione). The typical timeframe for the proceedings to grant enforcement is one to six months where there is no opposition. In practice, contested exequatur petitions involving punitive damages will take considerably longer: eighteen months from filing to a first-instance Court of Appeal decision is a realistic horizon, with the possibility of a further appeal before the Italian Court of Cassation adding one to two years in the most complex cases.

With regard to non-EU judgments, a declaration of enforceability is required under Article 67 of Law 218/1995, provided that no specific international convention applies. Anyone entitled to seek enforcement must provide: a certified copy of the judgment, duly apostilled (or legalised); a court certificate confirming that the judgment is final and binding between the parties; and a certified translation into Italian of both the judgment and the certificate.

Beyond those documents, a petition setting out why each Article 64 condition is met must be filed before the Court of Appeal with territorial jurisdiction over the place where enforcement is sought or, failing a clear asset location, where the defendant is domiciled. The petitioner must demonstrate: the US court had jurisdiction by Italian private international law standards; the defendant was properly served at the outset of the American proceedings; the judgment is final under US law; and no Italian court is already adjudicating the same dispute between the same parties.

Before the start of enforcement proceedings, the party concerned must issue a formal final notice of payment to the losing party, asking it to comply with the decision within ten days, beyond which the award will be enforced. In Italian law this is the formal demand before enforcement (precetto / atto di precetto), a mandatory step between recognition and attachment of assets (called pignoramento).

Strategic implications: what foreign creditors and transatlantic litigants should do now

The November 2025 ruling creates a new asset-recovery dynamic. Distressed-debt purchasers who acquire US judgments incorporating statutory treble-damages elements now have a credible enforcement route into Italy. US law firms advising claimants with Italian defendants should build the Italian enforcement analysis into the litigation strategy from day one — not as an afterthought once the US judgment is obtained.

Four practical points stand out.

First, document the statutory basis of any punitive award at every stage of the US proceedings. If the California Penal Code section number, or equivalent, does not appear on the face of the judgment, obtain a court-certified clarification before seeking Italian exequatur. Italian courts will look for the text of the foreign statutory provision; a bare reference to "punitive damages" will not suffice.

Second, watch the ratio between punitive and compensatory elements. A 2:1 ratio (as in the November 2025 case) cleared the Italian Court of Appeal and was upheld by the Italian Court of Cassation. Higher multiples remain untested in the post-2025 landscape. Where the US judgment carries a large punitive multiplier, consider whether a partial recognition strategy — recognising the compensatory and prejudgment-interest portion first while contesting the punitive element as a separate question — might be more cost-efficient.

Third, locate Italian assets early. Following the restructuring plan in the November 2025 case, the companies assigned the credit to a distressed asset fund, which subsequently sought recognition of the Californian judgment in Italy. That sequence — US litigation, assignment, Italian exequatur — is now a viable template. But enforcement is only as good as the assets found. An Italian lawyer can conduct pre-exequatur asset searches, including land registry searches (visura catastale) and company registry checks, to confirm whether there is anything worth chasing.

Fourth, check for parallel proceedings. Article 64(g) of Law 218/1995 bars recognition if an Italian court is already seized of the same matter. If the Italian defendant has filed a mero accertamento claim or another strategic proceeding in Italy to block enforcement, this must be resolved before or during the exequatur petition.

The November 2025 ruling does not eliminate the public-policy filter — it clarifies how to pass it. The filter remains active, and Italian courts retain the authority to refuse recognition of awards they find disproportionate or insufficiently grounded in statute. Rigorous preparation of the exequatur petition, with thorough Italian-law analysis of each Article 64 condition and a well-argued response to the proportionality question the 2025 court left open, is not optional.

Image prompt: A wide-angle view of a classical Italian courthouse interior — marble columns, high vaulted ceilings painted in muted ochre and grey — with a leather-bound American court judgment resting open on a polished wooden table in the foreground, a small American flag pin beside it. The lighting is cool and formal, early morning sun cutting across the stone floor. Mood: measured authority, two legal worlds meeting. Painterly realism, no text visible.

Image file: enforce-us-punitive-damages-italy-2026-cover

HREFLANG BLOCK:

JSON-LD:

LANGUAGE QA: ontologically incompatible with the Italian legal order -> fundamentally incompatible with Italian law · Joint Sections — Sezioni Unite — are the Italian Court of Cassation's highest formation -> Grand Chamber / Full Court of the Court of Cassation · Joint Divisions of the Italian Court of Cassation -> Grand Chamber of the Court of Cassation · the party interested in enforcing the decision must file a request -> the enforcing party must apply to the court · the institute of punitive damages -> the doctrine / concept of punitive damages · acquire force within Italian territory -> take effect / become enforceable in Italy · without the need of a court order -> without the need for a court order · a decision of the Joint Divisions… represents a significant precedent which lower courts and subsequent judgments are likely to follow, in terms of which courts will be required to recognise -> split into two sentences; delete 'in terms of which'

CHECK:
AUTHORITY 1: Italian Court of Cassation, First Civil Division, judgment no. 31244 of 30 November 2025 (Cass. civ., Sez. I, sentenza 30 novembre 2025, n. 31244, ECLI:IT:CASS:2025:31244CIV)
— EXISTS? Yes — confirmed by aldricus.giustizia.it (3 March 2026), rplt.it (9 February 2026), eapil.org (17 February 2026), studiocngf.it, and irol.eu.
— CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — treble damages under California Penal Code s.496(a) and (c), two Italian defendants, Rome Court of Appeal recognition upheld, tipicità and prevedibilità conditions satisfied, proportionality left open.

AUTHORITY 2: Italian Court of Cassation, Joint Sections, judgment no. 16601 of 5 July 2017 (Cass. Sez. Un., sentenza 5 luglio 2017, n. 16601)
— EXISTS? Yes — confirmed by studiocataldi.it, legalmondo.com, eapil.org, cms.law, mondaq/advant-nctm, researchgate.net.
— CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — three-condition framework (tipicità, prevedibilità, limiti quantitativi); punitive damages not ontologically incompatible with Italian legal order.

AUTHORITY 3: Law No. 218 of 31 May 1995, Articles 64–67 (Italian private international law statute)
— EXISTS? Yes — confirmed by cms.law, lexology.com, ibanet.org, legal500, italy-advisor.it, nortonrosefulbright.com.
— CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — governs recognition and enforcement of non-EU foreign judgments; Article 64 conditions; Article 67 exequatur procedure before Court of Appeal; public-policy bar.

OVERALL: GREEN — all three authorities confirmed by multiple independent sources, content matches the claims made in the article.

LOCAL NOTE:
1. Search intent targeted: informational with strong transactional pull — readers are US/UK/Australian lawyers or creditors holding an American judgment against an Italian defendant, actively evaluating whether to pursue Italian enforcement.
2. Local-market framing: the article addresses readers in the US, UK, Ireland, Canada, and Australia who are familiar with punitive damages as routine but unaware that Italy requires a statutory basis rather than jury-discretionary awards; the contrast paragraph explicitly flags that a common-law discretionary punitive award without a statutory multiplier may still fail the Italian test.
3. Italian terms kept: exequatur (no exact English equivalent for the specific Italian civil-procedure petition; explained on first use), pignoramento (explained as attachment of assets), precetto (rendered with the locked terminology as "formal demand before enforcement"), ordine pubblico (used once in italics when quoting the 2017 court's language directly), Sezioni Unite (explained as Joint Sections on first use). All other Italian legal terms rendered using the locked terminology list.