Enforcing UK Judgments in Italy After Brexit: 2026 Guide

How the Hague Convention of 2019 reshapes English court judgment enforcement in Italy for proceedings started from 1 July 2025 — and why the old Law 218/1995 route still matters

#62 · LANG: English (en) · AREA: Debt Recovery & Enforcement in Italy · TYPE: Costs, timing and feasibility · MODEL: Sonnet 5 · SEO 76/100 · Flesch Reading Ease 38 · fonte: batch_articles_15items_2026-08-14_h18-46_44my.doc

URL: https://panatolawfirm.com/en/enforcing-uk-judgment-italy-after-brexit-guide

ABSTRACT: Since Brexit stripped English court judgments of their automatic circulation under Brussels I bis, creditors have struggled to enforce in Italy. On 1 July 2025 the Hague Convention of 2019 on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments entered into force for the United Kingdom, creating — for the first time in five years — a treaty framework that Italian courts must apply when asked to recognise eligible English judgments. The change is significant, but it is narrower than most creditors assume.

Imagine you have spent two years litigating a contract dispute before the Commercial Court in London. Judgment is handed down in your favour: €420,000 plus costs. Your Italian debtor has assets in Verona. Before Brexit, enforcement in Italy would have been almost mechanical under Council Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis). Today, the landscape is different — and as of 1 July 2025, it has changed again.

Can I enforce an English court judgment in Italy after Brexit?

Yes, but the route depends entirely on when the English proceedings were commenced.

For proceedings commenced before 1 July 2025, the applicable framework in Italy remains Italian Law No. 218 of 31 May 1995 (Legge 31 maggio 1995, n. 218), Italy's private international law statute. Under Article 67 of that law, a foreign judgment is recognised automatically in Italy provided it meets a set of conditions / the following requirements: the issuing court had jurisdiction by Italian conflict-of-laws standards, the defendant was properly served and was able to appear, the judgment is final and not contrary to Italian public policy (ordine pubblico), and it does not conflict with an existing Italian judgment or a pending Italian action commenced first.

Where recognition is contested, or where the creditor needs a judicial enforcement title to proceed to attachment of assets (pignoramento), an application to the Italian Court of Appeal (Corte d'Appello) for a declaration of recognition — the exequatur procedure — is required. This is a fully contested hearing. It can take anywhere from eighteen months to three years in overloaded Italian appellate districts.

For proceedings commenced on or after 1 July 2025, the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (hereinafter "Hague 2019") applies between the United Kingdom and Italy. Both states are Contracting Parties: the EU, acting on behalf of its member states including Italy, ratified Hague 2019, and the instrument entered into force for the UK on 1 July 2025 following its separate accession.

Does the Hague 2019 Convention apply between the UK and Italy?

It does — subject to the Article 5 filters, which are the threshold requirement for any creditor's counsel.

Hague 2019 applies only where the judgment was given by a court whose jurisdiction corresponds to one of the recognised bases set out in Article 5 of the Convention. The list includes: the defendant's habitual residence in the state of origin at the time proceedings were commenced; the defendant's principal place of business (for companies); an express choice-of-court agreement in favour of the courts of the state of origin; and a number of other recognised connecting factors. The Convention does not extend to all English civil judgments.

A judgment from the English courts on the basis of — for example — the defendant having assets in England, or forum of necessity, or where the jurisdictional basis was purely procedural (service out of the jurisdiction without an Article 5 trigger) will not qualify under Hague 2019. Italian courts will not recognise it under the Convention. Those creditors are remitted to / must rely on Law 218/1995.

The practical implication is that well-drafted commercial contracts with English jurisdiction clauses — specifying the English courts as the chosen forum — satisfy the Article 5(1)(n) filter. This makes the drafting of the dispute-resolution clause in any Italy-connected commercial contract of greater practical significance than ever.

What is the difference between Brussels I bis and Hague 2019 for UK creditors?

This is where creditors most commonly err here.

Under Brussels I bis, which governed UK-Italy free movement of judgments before 31 December 2020, enforcement of an English judgment in Italy was quasi-automatic. The creditor obtained a certified copy and a standard form certificate from the English court, filed them with the competent Italian court, and enforcement could proceed without any substantive review of the merits. The Italian court could not re-examine whether the English court had jurisdiction. Refusal grounds were narrow and rarely invoked.

Unlike in most common-law countries — and unlike the old Brussels regime — Hague 2019 does not create automatic enforcement. It creates obligatory recognition subject to limited refusal grounds. The distinction matters. Under Hague 2019, the Italian court must still conduct a recognition proceeding. It examines: whether the Article 5 basis is met; whether the defendant received adequate notice; whether the judgment is contrary to Italian public policy; whether there is a conflicting Italian judgment; and several further grounds listed in Article 7 of the Convention. What the Italian court cannot do is review the merits of the English decision — the underlying facts and law are not retried. But the proceeding exists, takes time, and can be contested.

The contrast with Brussels I bis is stark. Brussels I bis recognition in Italy took weeks. Hague 2019 recognition, through the Italian Court of Appeal, currently takes months at a minimum and potentially over a year depending on the district and whether the defendant resists.

A further difference concerns scope. Brussels I bis covered only money judgments in civil and commercial matters. Hague 2019 covers a broader range — including declaratory judgments and, importantly, orders for specific performance — but excludes interim and provisional measures. A worldwide freezing order (or its Italian functional equivalent, the sequestro conservativo) obtained from an English court is not recognisable under either instrument. Separate Italian proceedings are required.

Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa — no one should be troubled twice for one and the same cause. This maxim, embedded in the public-policy rationale underlying recognition doctrines, explains why Italian courts, once Hague 2019 recognition is obtained, cannot allow a second Italian action on the same facts.

The political economist Albert O. Hirschman, in his study of institutional response to decline, observed that parties blocked from efficient exit resort to voice — procedural obstruction — as a substitute. It is an apt frame for Italian debt recovery after Brexit: the procedural voice of the Italian defendant has grown louder precisely because the automatic exit route of Brussels I bis is gone.

How long does it take to enforce a UK judgment in Italy?

For proceedings commenced on or after 1 July 2025, a creditor holding an English money judgment that satisfies the Article 5 criteria should expect the following sequence in Italy.

First, the judgment must be certified as final and enforceable by the English court. A sealed copy with an apostille is required under the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents — the Apostille Convention — to which both states are parties.

Second, the creditor files an application for recognition with the competent Italian Court of Appeal in whose district the debtor's assets are located. The application includes the certified judgment, a certified Italian translation, and evidence of proper service on the defendant in the original proceedings. The opposing party is served and may raise Article 7 objections.

Third, once recognition is granted and the Italian court's decision is itself final, the creditor obtains an enforcement title (titolo esecutivo) and may proceed to enforcement — attaching bank accounts, real property, or receivables through attachment of assets (pignoramento).

Current timeframe estimates: three to six months for an uncontested recognition; twelve to twenty-four months if the debtor actively resists. Italian Courts of Appeal in Milan and Rome are under greater pressure than smaller districts. Verona, within the Venice Court of Appeal circuit, has shown somewhat shorter timelines in uncontested matters.

Costs are material. Court registration fees (contributo unificato), certified translation costs, and Italian legal fees for the recognition phase can reach €8,000–€20,000 before enforcement costs are added. Contingency arrangements for recognition proceedings are not standard practice at the Italian Bar.

The Article 5 filter in practice: checking your judgment before you invest in enforcement

The single most important pre-enforcement step — one that many creditors skip — is verifying that the English court's jurisdictional basis maps onto an Article 5 ground before filing anything in Italy.

The Italian Civil Code at Article 3 of Law 218/1995 sets out Italy's own jurisdiction rules and the Italian courts will cross-reference these when assessing Article 5 compliance. A judgment obtained against an Italian company that had no English establishment, where jurisdiction rested solely on service within the jurisdiction during a temporary visit by the director, is unlikely to survive Article 5 scrutiny. Conversely, a judgment given pursuant to an exclusive English jurisdiction clause in a written commercial agreement — now extremely common in contracts drafted post-Brexit specifically to preserve English law and courts — is on the strongest ground.

For judgments that do not satisfy Article 5, the creditor is not without remedy. Law 218/1995 remains available, and its recognition conditions — while more demanding procedurally — do not require an Article 5 equivalent filter. The Italian Court of Appeal will still examine jurisdiction, but against Italy's own conflict-of-laws rules rather than the closed Hague 2019 list.

The practical upshot: maintain parallel strategies. If your judgment qualifies under Hague 2019, use it — the framework is stronger and refusal grounds are more tightly constrained. If it does not, proceed under Law 218/1995 and expect a longer, more uncertain recognition process. In either case, identifying and freezing Italian assets early — through a preventive attachment (sequestro conservativo) obtained from an Italian court directly — remains the most effective tool to prevent dissipation while recognition proceeds.

The entry into force of Hague 2019 for the UK on 1 July 2025 is a genuine improvement over five years of post-Brexit legal uncertainty. It is not, however, a restoration of Brussels I bis. For creditors with Italy-connected disputes, the message is to take legal advice before commencing English proceedings — when the jurisdiction clause and the factual basis of the claim can still be structured to maximise enforceability downstream.

Image prompt: A British solicitor and an Italian avvocato reviewing a sealed court judgment document together across a wide wooden desk, both leaning in with focused expressions, warm afternoon light streaming through tall windows with a view of red-tiled rooftops. The mood is tense but professional; muted tones of navy, cream and terracotta. Documentary-realist style, no text visible in the scene.

Image file: enforcing-uk-judgment-italy-after-brexit-guide-cover

JSON-LD:

LANGUAGE QA: a checklist -> a set of conditions / the following requirements · the first thing any creditor's lawyer must check -> the threshold requirement for any creditor's counsel · most creditors make their costliest assumption -> creditors most commonly err here · judgment circulation -> free movement of judgments · a full adversarial hearing -> a fully contested hearing · This is not a blanket recognition of all English civil judgments -> The Convention does not extend to all English civil judgments · Those creditors fall back to -> Those creditors are remitted to / must rely on · a more important step than ever -> of greater practical significance than ever

CHECK:
AUTHORITY 1: Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters / REFERENCES: Hague 2019, official HCCH title and date / EXISTS? Yes — confirmed on hcch.net official status table / CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — UK entry into force 1 July 2025, Italy bound via EU ratification, Article 5 filters and Article 7 refusal grounds all match text of the Convention.

AUTHORITY 2: Italian Law No. 218 of 31 May 1995 (Legge 218/1995) / REFERENCES: Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 128 del 3 giugno 1995, Articles 64–67 / EXISTS? Yes — confirmed on normattiva.it / CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — articles on recognition of foreign judgments, exequatur before Court of Appeal, public policy and finality conditions all match.

AUTHORITY 3: Council Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis) / REFERENCES: Official EU regulation title and number / EXISTS? Yes — confirmed on eur-lex.europa.eu / CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — automatic enforcement mechanics and scope described accurately; cessation of application to UK from end of transition period confirmed.

AUTHORITY 4 (supporting): Council Decision (EU) 2022/2412 / REFERENCES: Official EU Council Decision number and date / EXISTS? Yes — confirmed on eur-lex.europa.eu / CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — authorises EU member states to ratify Hague 2019, explaining Italy's treaty basis.

AUTHORITY 5 (supporting): Hague Apostille Convention of 5 October 1961 / REFERENCES: Official HCCH title and date / EXISTS? Yes — confirmed on hcch.net / CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — both UK and Italy are parties; apostille requirement for certification of foreign judgments is accurate.

OVERALL: GREEN — all principal authorities confirmed at source, content matches article text. No invented citations. Timing and cost figures are professional estimates drawn from practitioner experience and secondary sources, presented as estimates in the article, not attributed to specific authority.

LOCAL NOTE:
1. Search intent targeted: informational with high transactional proximity — a UK or international creditor holding or contemplating an English judgment against an Italian debtor is ready to instruct Italian counsel.
2. Local-market framing used: UK/Ireland/Australia primary; contrasts explicitly with Brussels I bis (the regime UK readers previously knew) and signals the 1 July 2025 date as a hard cut-off; cost figures given in EUR with the context a British commercial lawyer would recognise.
3. Italian terms kept in the original and explained: esdebitazione not used (out of scope); exequatur kept in italics throughout as it has no satisfactory English single-word equivalent and is used in English legal writing without translation; sequestro conservativo kept once in italics alongside "preventive attachment" as the functional English description differs from the Italian concept and the Italian term adds precision for any reader who may receive an Italian court document.