ITALY Law and Practice Contributed by: Marco Torsello, Federica Serrantoni, Lucia Pontremoli and Gregorio Baldoli, ArbLit
Article 67 of the Italian Private International Law Act, governing enforcement, provides that any interested party can apply to the judicial authority to obtain a decision declaring that the requirements for recogni - tion are met. 3.2 Variations in Approach to Enforcement of Foreign Judgments As mentioned in 3.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgments , a different rec - ognition/enforcement regime applies depending on whether the foreign judgment is rendered in an EU member state or in a non-EU country. With regard to EU member state judgments in civil and commercial matters, the regime established by the Brussels I bis Regulation is identical, irrespective of the type of judgment concerned. This is so because the definition of “judgment” provided for in Article 2 of the Brussels I bis Regulation is comprehensive, including any judgment given by a court or a tribu - nal of an EU member state – whatever the judgment may be called (eg, a decree, order, decision or writ of execution) – as well as a decision on the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court. Arti - cle 2 of the Brussels I bis Regulation further specifies that the definition of “judgment” includes provisional measures ordered by a court or tribunal that, by virtue of the Brussels I bis Regulation itself, has jurisdiction over the substance of the matter. Conversely, it does not include a provisional measure ordered by such court or tribunal without the defendant being sum - moned, unless the judgment containing the measure is served on the defendant prior to enforcement. Therefore, the recognition and enforcement regime established by the Brussels I bis Regulation applies to all types of judgments except provisional measures either: • ordered by a court of an EU member state not hav - ing jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter; or • ordered without the defendant being summoned to appear.
The recognition and enforcement of these measures in Italy are thus regulated by the Italian Private Inter - national Law Act. As mentioned in 3.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (under Non-EU Countries’ Judgments ), the Italian Private Internation - al Law Act provides for different rules on recognition depending on whether the judgment in question quali - fies as a court’s decision rendered in an adversarial proceeding (Article 64), a court’s decision rendered in a non-adversarial proceeding (Article 66), or a judg - ment relating to personal status, capacity, familiar relationships and personal rights (Article 65). Irrespec - tive of the type of judgment, enforcement is governed by Article 67 of the Italian Private International Law Act – according to which, in the event of non-voluntary compliance with a judgment or opposition thereto, any interested party may apply to the judicial authority to obtain a decision to ascertain whether the require - ments for recognition are met. Article 32 of the Lugano Convention provides for a definition of “judgment” that essentially mirrors the one provided for in the Brussels I bis Regulation and thus includes any judgment rendered by a court or tribunal of a signatory state – whatever the judgment may be called (eg, a decree, order, decision or writ of execution) – as well as the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court. Article 3 of the 2019 Hague Convention defines a “judgment” as any decision on the merits given by a court – whatever that decision may be called (eg, a decree or order) – and a determination of costs or expenses of the proceedings by the court, provided that the determination relates to a decision on the merits eligible for recognition under the 2019 Hague Convention. It also specifies that interim measures of protection are not judgments and therefore are not subject to the recognition and enforcement regime established by the 2019 Hague Convention.
236 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook