Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers
CHAMBERS GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDES
Enforcement of Judgments 2024
Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers
Contributing Editor James Herring Addleshaw Goddard
Global Practice Guides
Enforcement of Judgments
Contributing Editor James Herring Addleshaw Goddard
2025
Chambers Global Practice Guides For more than 20 years, Chambers Global Guides have ranked lawyers and law firms across the world. Chambers now offer clients a new series of Global Practice Guides, which contain practical guidance on doing legal business in key jurisdictions. We use our knowledge of the world’s best lawyers to select leading law firms in each jurisdiction to write the ‘Law & Practice’ sections. In addition, the ‘Trends & Developments’ sections analyse trends and developments in local legal markets. Disclaimer: The information in this guide is provided for general reference only, not as specific legal advice. Views expressed by the authors are not necessarily the views of the law firms in which they practise. For specific legal advice, a lawyer should be consulted. Content Management Director Claire Oxborrow Content Manager Jonathan Mendelowitz Senior Content Reviewers Sally McGonigal, Ethne Withers, Deborah Sinclair and Stephen Dinkeldein Content Reviewers Vivienne Button, Lawrence Garrett, Sean Marshall, Marianne Page, Heather Palomino and Adrian Ciechacki Content Coordination Manager Nancy Laidler Senior Content Coordinators Carla Cagnina and Delicia Tasinda Content Coordinator Hannah Leinmüller Head of Production Jasper John Production Coordinator Genevieve Sibayan
Published by Chambers and Partners 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AE Tel +44 20 7606 8844 Fax +44 20 7831 5662 Web www.chambers.com
Copyright © 2025 Chambers and Partners
Contents
INTRODUCTION Contributed by James Herring, Addleshaw Goddard p.5
ENGLAND & WALES Law and Practice p.155 Contributed by Addleshaw Goddard EU Law and Practice p.171 Contributed by Freshfields Trends and Developments p.180 Contributed by Freshfields FRANCE Law and Practice p.185 Contributed by De Pardieu Brocas Maffei
AUSTRIA Law and Practice p.8 Contributed by KNOETZL
BAHRAIN Trends and Developments p.27 Contributed by Hassan Radhi & Associates
BELGIUM Law and Practice p.34 Contributed by Janson CANADA Law and Practice p.47
GERMANY Law and Practice p.203 Contributed by HEUKING GREECE Law and Practice p.216
Contributed by Baker McKenzie Trends and Developments p.64 Contributed by Bojm Funt & Gibbons CAYMAN ISLANDS Law and Practice p.71 Contributed by Campbells Trends and Developments p.83 Contributed by Collas Crill Contributed by Han Kun Law Offices Trends and Developments p.106 Contributed by Han Kun Law Offices CYPRUS Law and Practice p.114 Contributed by Chryssafinis & Polyviou LLC CHINA Law and Practice p.91 Trends and Developments p.123 Contributed by Economou & Co LLC
Contributed by Zepos & Yannopoulos Trends and Developments p.232 Contributed by Zepos & Yannopoulos ISRAEL Law and Practice p.238 Contributed by Herzog Fox & Neeman
ITALY Law and Practice p.251 Contributed by ArbLit
JAPAN Law and Practice p.267 Contributed by Anderson Mori & Tomotsune Trends and Developments p.277 Contributed by Gaien Partners
LIECHTENSTEIN Law and Practice p.282 Contributed by Schurti Partners Attorneys at Law Ltd MAURITIUS Trends and Developments p.292 Contributed by Chambers of Sir Hamid Moollan KC
DENMARK Law and Practice p.130 Contributed by Bruun & Hjejle
EGYPT Law and Practice p.143 Contributed by Matouk Bassiouny & Hennawy
3 CHAMBERS.COM
Contents
MEXICO Law and Practice p.299 Contributed by White & Case
SINGAPORE Law and Practice p.414 Contributed by Drew & Napier Trends and Developments p.432 Contributed by WongPartnership
Trends and Developments p.318 Contributed by De la Garza & Acosta
NIGERIA Law and Practice p.324
SPAIN Law and Practice p.438
Contributed by Streamsowers & Köhn Trends and Developments p.339 Contributed by Streamsowers & Köhn NORWAY Law and Practice p.345 Contributed by Simonsen Vogt Wiig
Contributed by López-Ibor Abogados Trends and Developments p.453 Contributed by López-Ibor Abogados SWEDEN Law and Practice p.458 Contributed by Vinge Trends and Developments p.467 Contributed by Vinge Contributed by Monfrini Bitton Klein Trends and Developments p.489 Contributed by Monfrini Bitton Klein TAIWAN Law and Practice p.493 Contributed by Formosa Transnational SWITZERLAND Law and Practice p.473 UAE Law and Practice p.507 Contributed by Alsuwaidi & Company
PHILIPPINES Law and Practice p.355 Contributed by SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan
PORTUGAL Law and Practice p.365 Contributed by PLMJ
QATAR Law and Practice p.377 Contributed by Al Tamimi & Company SAUDI ARABIA Law and Practice p.389 Contributed by Omar Alrasheed Law Firm SERBIA Law and Practice p.398 Contributed by Law Office Miroslav Stojanović
USA Trends and Developments p.523 Contributed by Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney
4 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: James Herring, Addleshaw Goddard Addleshaw Goddard is a full-service international law firm with more than 2,000 lawyers, including over 450 partners, spread across offices in Aberdeen, Abu Dhabi, Berlin, Doha, Dubai, Dublin, Edinburgh, Frankfurt, Glasgow, Hamburg, Leeds, London, Lux - embourg, Madrid, Manchester, Munich, Muscat, Paris, Riyadh, Singapore and Warsaw, and with a formal office alliance in Tokyo. The firm also works with its dynamic local firm network, Global Connect. The firm’s award-winning disputes group has a track record of advising FTSE 100, FTSE 350 and other
UK and international corporate clients, government and public bodies, key financial institutions and high- profile individuals. The disputes team comprises 360 lawyers in offices around the world, supplemented by a large bank of flexible resource provided by pa - ralegals and consultant lawyers. Its practice spans all forms of commercial civil disputes and corporate crime matters. The firm advises in relation to domes - tic, international and cross-border litigation, as well as arbitration, ADR, regulatory investigations, and risk management.
Contributing Editor
James Herring is a partner in Addleshaw Goddard’s finance disputes team and advises financial institutions on a wide range of contentious matters. His expertise includes mis-sold claims (in relation to
financial products), claims relating to lending and security issues, letters of credit, derivatives and structured products, as well as professional negligence claims. James acts for clients in the fintech sector and in the payments industry. He also has extensive heavyweight commercial litigation experience, including in the appeal courts.
Addleshaw Goddard Milton Gate 60 Chiswell Street London EC1Y 4AG UK
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7160 3259 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7606 4390 Email: james.herring@addleshawgoddard.com Web: www.addleshawgoddard.com
5 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: James Herring, Addleshaw Goddard
Arbitral awards The ease of enforcement of most arbitral awards is a relevant consideration when, before contracting, par - ties decide on their preferred form of dispute resolu - tion. The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards continues to attract new signatories and now has 172 contract - ing states. It provides wide-ranging global coverage for the enforcement of certain arbitral awards and is one of the attractions of arbitration over court litiga - tion. Hague – two sister conventions The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agree - ments 2005 (“Hague Convention 2005”) received much greater attention in the United Kingdom after the UK’s exit from the European Union and – as a result – the reciprocal enforcement regime of the Recast Brussels Regulation. Under the Hague Con - vention 2005, contracting states agree to recognise and enforce judgments given by the courts of other Hague Convention 2005 contracting states, where jurisdiction is based on an exclusive choice of court agreement between the parties. At the time of writing (July 2025), the Hague Convention 2005 contract - ing states are Albania, Bahrain, EU member states, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Singapore, Switzerland, the UK (the UK acceded in its own right at the end of the Brexit TP) and Ukraine. China, Israel and the United States have all signed but not ratified the Hague Convention 2005, so it is not in force for those countries. The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Com - mercial Matters (“Hague Judgments Convention 2019”) is intended to operate as a sister convention to the Hague Convention 2005, aiming to establish “a common framework for the global circulation of judgments in civil or commercial matters”. As with any international agreement, the extent to which the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 achieves this aim will depend on uptake. The Hague Judgments Convention 2019 is currently in force between EU member states (other than Den - mark), the UK, Uruguay and Ukraine. It deals only with the enforcement of judgments, and not with the allo -
Enforcement of Judgments: An Overview A judgment that cannot be enforced is of very little value. It is therefore important for those involved in commercial disputes to understand, before embarking on legal proceedings, where an opponent’s assets are located, what judicial assistance (if any) will be avail - able to locate assets against which to enforce, and the process for enforcement in the relevant jurisdiction(s). In a cross-border dispute, answers to these questions may drive the decision on where to sue. Once the assets have been identified and located, important questions about the enforcement process in any relevant jurisdiction include the following: • whether it is possible to enforce a judgment directly, without bringing a fresh claim; • if it is necessary to bring a fresh claim, whether it is possible to rely on an existing judgment (or wheth - er the enforcing jurisdiction will want to reopen the original dispute); • how long the enforcement process will take and what it will cost; and • the judgment debtor’s scope to resist enforcement action (and how can this risk be minimised). Obstacles to enforcement have the potential to adversely affect national and international commerce. For this reason, trading relationships often give rise to attempts to create a simplified enforcement environ - ment. For example, the European Union relies to a significant extent on mutual respect for each member state’s judicial system. This is reflected in the relatively frictionless environment for the enforcement of judg - ments of one member state in another member state under the Recast Brussels Regulation. However, even where trading blocs have reached detailed agreements on the enforcement of judg - ments, these cannot possibly cover every situation. Cross-border enforcement is therefore often a com - plex topic. And whatever the legal framework, national approach - es often differ depending on things like the type of incoming judgment, the state of origin, the subject matter of the dispute, and whether the incoming judg - ment is interim or final.
6 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: James Herring, Addleshaw Goddard
cation of jurisdiction. As it is intended to be a sister convention to the Hague Convention 2005, it provides for the enforcement of judgments where (amongst several other jurisdictional bases) jurisdiction is con - ferred by a non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement. The Hague Judgments Convention 2019 has a relatively wide subject matter scope so, depending on uptake, it has the potential to make international enforcement of judgments significantly easier and cheaper. UN Convention for the Enforcement of Mediation Settlements (the “Singapore Mediation Convention”) The international enforcement landscape is continu - ally changing. This is driven in part by new conven - tions and/or new signatories to existing conventions. The Singapore Mediation Convention has been open for signature since August 2019 and has now been signed by 58 states (including Brazil, China, India, Nigeria, the UK and the USA). It has come into force for 14 countries (it is also due to come into force for Bahrain, Costa Rica, Israel and Paraguay during the course of 2025), but the EU has not yet signed, nor have any EU member states.
The Singapore Mediation Convention provides for cross-border enforcement of mediation settlement agreements, similar to the New York Convention for arbitration awards. Someone seeking to rely on a mediated settlement agreement can apply directly to the competent authority of a state that is party to the Singapore Mediation Convention to enforce the agreement. Again, the success of the Singapore Mediation Con - vention will depend on international uptake. If it is widely ratified, it will be interesting to see whether the Singapore Mediation Convention leads to an increase in the use of mediation in relation to disputes arising from international transactions (including clauses in contracts requiring parties to mediate before a dispute escalates). DISCLAIMER: The information in this practice guide is provided for general reference only, not as specific legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as such. Views expressed by the authors for each jurisdiction are their own (not those of the law firms in which they practise or of any other author or contributor to this guide). Each part of this guide has been produced independently by the relevant author(s) for that juris- diction. For specific legal advice, a lawyer should always be consulted.
7 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRIA
Czech Republic
Germany
Slovak
Vienna
Austria
Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Patrizia Netal, Katrin Hanschitz and Natascha Tunkel KNOETZL
Hungary
Italy
Slovenia
Croatia
Contents 1. Identifying Assets in the Jurisdiction p.10 1.1 Options to Identify Another Party’s Asset Position p.10 2. Domestic Judgments p.13 2.1 Types of Domestic Judgments p.13 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments p.14 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments p.17 2.4 Post-Judgment Procedures for Determining Defendants’ Assets p.17 2.5 Challenging Enforcement of Domestic Judgments p.17 3.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgments p.18 3.2 Variations in Approach to Enforcement of Foreign Judgments p.18 3.3 Categories of Foreign Judgments Not Enforced p.19 3.4 Process of Enforcing Foreign Judgments p.20 3.5 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Foreign Judgments p.21 3.6 Challenging Enforcement of Foreign Judgments p.21 4. Arbitral Awards p.22 4.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Arbitral Awards p.22 4.2 Variations in Approach to Enforcement of Arbitral Awards p.22 4.3 Categories of Arbitral Awards Not Enforced p.22 4.4 Process of Enforcing Arbitral Awards p.23 4.5 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Arbitral Awards p.24 4.6 Challenging Enforcement of Arbitral Awards p.24 2.6 Unenforceable Domestic Judgments p.17 2.7 Register of Domestic Judgments p.17 3. Foreign Judgments p.18
8 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Patrizia Netal, Katrin Hanschitz and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL
KNOETZL is Austria’s first large-scale dispute resolu - tion powerhouse dedicated to high-profile cases that matter. KNOETZL’s diverse expertise encompasses civil, commercial, sovereign, corporate and fraud liti - gation, focusing significantly on liability claims, cor - porate (including M&A, financing and joint venture disputes), banking, insurance and financial deriva - tives cases, investor protection, digital transforma - tion, data protection and social media, business and political crime, and asset tracing, as well as provi - sional measures such as freeze orders and attach -
ments in the domestic and international contexts and in the enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards. The firm’s practice covers interna - tional commercial arbitration, investment protection, and arbitration-related court proceedings, mediation and ADR. KNOETZL is well regarded for its disputes work at the intersection of civil and criminal matters. Distinguished international law firms, corporate deci - sion-makers and general counsel frequently turn to KNOETZL to act as their Austrian disputes counsel.
Authors
Bettina Knoetzl is a leading trial lawyer and mediator at KNOETZL, with more than 25 years’ experience. She specialises in the resolution of national and international commercial and corporate disputes, including liability claims, investor and shareholder protection (including representation in insolvencies and disputes arising from sophisticated M&A and/or financial transactions), business crimes, and product liability issues. Bettina is active across various industries, such as banking, finance, insurance, life sciences, online services (including data protection disputes), automotive and construction. Katrin Hanschitz is a partner at KNOETZL and an active member of the American Bar Association, as co-chair of the international litigation committee. She is an experienced first-chair litigator with expertise in M&A, finance transactions and ancillary disputes. In addition to corporate and post-transactional litigation, Katrin’s primary focus is on shareholder disputes, managerial liability, governance issues and disputed M&A transactions, as well as contentious insurance coverage, financing, international trade and international insolvency matters. She regularly represents multinational clients from a wide range of industries and has experience in handling complex, disputed cases in the fields of advertising, competition law, international insolvency, and insurance.
Patrizia Netal is a co-founder of KNOETZL and co-chairs its arbitration team. Patrizia has extensive experience in arbitration proceedings under the DIS (German Arbitration Institute), ICC, Swiss, VIAC (Vienna
International Arbitral Centre) and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. She acts as both counsel and arbitrator and, as such, has been involved in numerous large-scale projects across the SEE and CEE regions – with a particular focus on energy, construction and engineering, post-M&A disputes, and international sales contracts. Patrizia is vice- president of the VIAC and a director of the Vis Moot (the world’s largest student competition in international arbitration).
Natascha Tunkel is a partner at KNOETZL and has more than 15 years’ experience in the field of complex dispute resolution as counsel in litigation and arbitration. She also sits as arbitrator under the
major arbitral rules. Natascha stands out for her in-depth knowledge of procedural law and is regularly called upon in cases that require action in different forums. As head of the firm’s investigations team, Natascha has assisted clients in a number of international asset-tracing and white-collar crime investigations, including deep forensic analysis of large data volumes. Her skill set enables her to provide sophisticated analysis and effective solutions.
9 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Patrizia Netal, Katrin Hanschitz and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL
KNOETZL Herrengasse 1 1010 Vienna Austria
Tel: +43 1 34 34 000 212 Email: office@knoetzl.com Web: www.knoetzl.com
1. Identifying Assets in the Jurisdiction 1.1 Options to Identify Another Party’s Asset Position Introduction to Enforcement Under Austrian Law Austrian courts are known for their efficiency. This also applies to the enforcement of (foreign and domestic) judgments. The relevant provisions of domestic law pertaining to enforcement proceedings are contained in the Aus - trian Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) ( Zivilprozessor- dnung ) and the Austrian Enforcement Act (EA) ( Exe- kutionsordnung ). Moreover, as Austria is a member state of the EU, the relevant regulations apply, such as Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. In addition, Austria is party to a number of multilateral and bilateral treaties that deal with the recognition and enforcement of judgments, including: • the Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the rec - ognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (2007); • the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agree - ments (2005); • the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (2019); and • the bilateral treaty with the UK providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judg - ments in civil and commercial matters (1961), which has once more become relevant in view of Brexit.
To respond to the COVID-19 crisis, the Austrian government implemented a number of measures to cushion the negative impact. The measures, inter alia, provide for the possibility of oral hearings to be con - ducted remotely; the Austrian law-maker subsequent - ly adopted the option of remote hearings permanently. Identifying the Assets of Another Party Publicly available information In Austria, there are several public registers that may prove useful in identifying the assets of another party. The most relevant of these are as follows. • The Land Register ( Grundbuch ) – with regard to immovable assets, the Land Register can be con - sulted. It is kept by the courts of the federal states and includes information on ownership, mortgages and the more recent underlying documents, such as purchase and mortgage agreements. While all persons may enquire regarding ownership of a property, only certain registered persons (such as notaries, lawyers or other public bodies) or persons who have a proven legal interest may search for a specific legal or natural person and can obtain a list of property owned by that person or access underlying documents. • The Company Register ( Firmenbuch ) – when identi - fying the asset position of a company, the first step is to check the Austrian Company Register, which is kept by the courts of the federal states and by the Commercial Court of Vienna. Depending on the type of company, the Company Register may include information on the managing directors and shareholders (including addresses), the company’s equity and (abbreviated) annual accounts. The Company Register is open for public inspection
10 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Patrizia Netal, Katrin Hanschitz and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL
without the need to show any specific legal interest or justification. • The Tradespersons Register ( Gewerberegister ) – in order to obtain information on the commercial activities of specific legal or natural persons, the Austrian Tradespersons Register, which is kept by local administrative authorities, may prove help - ful. Under Austrian law, most trades may only be carried out by certified tradespersons. The Trades - persons Register is easily accessible online and lists the trades registered by a specific juridical or natural person. • The Insolvency Register ( Ediktsdatei ) is an online database kept by the competent courts, which publish all relevant decisions related to insolvency proceedings. It is publicly and easily accessible online. The database shows whether a party is subject to insolvency proceedings, as well as the status of those proceedings. The Insolvency Regis - ter also lists court-ordered auctions of assets. • The Trade Mark and Patent Register ( Marken- und Patentregister ) offers a freely accessible online database that identifies ownership of registered IP, including national and European patents, trade marks and designs. Further means to identify assets Creditors who can show that they have a claim against the debtor and legitimate doubts as to the debtor’s creditworthiness may instruct a lawyer or notary to access the Enforcement Register ( Exekutionsregister ), which contains court data regarding enforcement pro - ceedings conducted against the debtor. The informa - tion includes the number of pending enforcement pro - ceedings (including the amounts owed) for the past two years, whether enforcement measures regarding movable assets have been successful, and whether the debtor was ordered to provide a list of all assets ( Vermögensverzeichnis ) in the past year. The Register of Beneficial Owners ( Register der wirtschaftlichen Eigentümer ) is accessible for certain groups of registered users – generally entities who are subject to AML obligations, including lawyers, nota - ries, (chartered) accountants, banks and various types of agents. It allows the determination of the (indirect) commercial owners of companies registered in Aus - tria.
The Association for Credit Protection ( Kreditschutz- verband von 1870 ) maintains a database with infor - mation on companies and individuals. It contains company profiles, branch profiles, and monitoring and early warning systems for the purpose of inform - ing (potential) creditors about the financial standing of their business partners. As the accuracy of this online database cannot be guaranteed, a double check with other available data is always highly recommended. Asset Disclosure Orders Asset Disclosure Orders are limited under Austrian law, but they are available in enforcement proceed - ings. Upon the application of the creditor, the court will order third-party debtors, social security agencies and the debtor to disclose specific information. In enforcement proceedings aimed at seizing monies in Austrian bank accounts held by the debtor, it suf - fices to name the bank and request the court to order the bank to disclose any accounts. Austrian banks are obliged to comply with this information request by law and are liable for any incorrect information. Enforcement proceedings for the attachment of earn - ings may be initiated even if the identity of the debtor’s employer is unknown. Upon the application of the creditor, the court will request this information from the social security agencies, which are obliged to pro - vide such information by law. Should a request to the social security agencies not show any regular income or if no movable assets of value are found, the debtor can be ordered by the court to provide an inventory disclosing all assets ( Ver- mögensverzeichnis ) (Section 47 et seq of the EA). If the debtor refuses to draw up an inventory of assets, the court may impose imprisonment for up to six months. Incorrect disclosures are sanctioned by criminal law. Enforcement Packages Under Sections 19 and 20 of the Austrian Enforcement Act The fallback means of enforcement is the “simple enforcement package”, which is triggered if the credi - tor does not specify any enforcement measures in the enforcement application, and automatically includes enforcement against all movable goods in the debtor’s possession, attachment of salary claims (the debtor
11 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Patrizia Netal, Katrin Hanschitz and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL
need not be specified), and a subsidiary asset disclo - sure statement from the debtor (Section 47 of the EA) if the other two enforcement measures did not suffice to satisfy the creditor’s monetary claims. Creditors can also apply for an “extended enforcement package”, whereby an enforcement administrator is tasked with tracing and liquidating the debtor’s assets and obtain - ing a statement from the debtor disclosing their assets (Section 47 et seq of the EA). Freezing Orders If a creditor has already obtained a (first instance) court decision that has not yet become final and bind - ing (because it is subject to an appeal by the debtor), Austrian law provides for “preliminary enforcement” to secure monetary claims ( Exekution zur Sicherstellung ) (Section 370 et seq of the EA). Such protective meas - ures are, however, only available based on a decision rendered by an Austrian court or a court of a member state of the EU. Prior to a court decision, freezing orders and injunc - tions are available as “interim measures” ( einstweilige Verfügungen ) (Section 378 et seq of the EA). Moreo - ver, as Austria is a member state of the EU, its courts may issue a European Account Preservation Order (based on Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the Euro - pean Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014) to freeze bank accounts within the EU. To prevent the enforcement of a future court decision from becoming considerably more difficult or even impossible, a party may request interim relief in the course of pending proceedings or before filing a claim. In the latter case, a short period (often one to three months) is usually set by the court as the deadline for initiating main proceedings to decide upon the claim that is to be secured. If no main proceedings are initi - ated within the given period, the interim relief will be lifted by the court. Although it is not necessary to fully prove the underly - ing claim, the requesting party will be required to show that its claim is sufficiently substantiated. If in doubt, courts will order the party requesting interim relief to post security that serves to mitigate against loss by the opposing party should it incur damages based on an interim measure that is not ultimately justified.
Interim measures to secure monetary claims require the requesting party to plausibly show “subjective endangerment” of the claim based on specific actions of the opposing party. This subjective endangerment is a high threshold and requires the party to dem - onstrate to the court that, if the interim relief is not granted, the opposing party will ultimately undermine the outcome of the main proceedings in the meantime by taking steps to hamper enforcement by damaging, destroying, hiding or otherwise dissipating assets. In limited cases, it is sufficient to show “objective endangerment”. This is established, in particular, if enforcement would otherwise be outside the EU or in states where international treaties ensuring enforce - ment are not in place. Interim measures are also available to secure non- monetary claims, such as the performance of specific acts and obligations to cease and desist. For such claims, it suffices to demonstrate to the court that there will be “objective endangerment”, such as immi - In general, if the claim is already subject to ongoing main proceedings, the court competent for the main proceedings also has jurisdiction over requests for interim relief. In other cases, the jurisdiction lies with the competent district court ( Bezirksgericht ) at the opposing party’s domicile (primary jurisdiction) or – if no Austrian domicile is available – at the location of the asset that is subject to the interim injunction, at the place where the act of enforcement will take place, or – in cases of garnishment orders – at the third party’s domicile. In many cases, Austrian courts will decide on an appli - cation for interim relief within a few days. In more com - plex cases, it may take a week or two until a decision is rendered. Upon application, the court may issue its decision ex parte if the requesting party convinces it that the goal of the relief sought could be frustrated otherwise. nent violence or irreversible harm. Procedure to obtain interim relief Each party may file legal remedies against the court’s decision on the interim injunction within 14 days after
12 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Patrizia Netal, Katrin Hanschitz and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL
the respective party has been served with the court’s decision. To protect parties from the adverse consequences of an interim measure, Austrian law imposes liability on the requesting party for damages incurred as a result of an unjustified interim injunction. In addition, the court may impose a fine on the requesting party if it transpires that the request was baseless and filed wilfully (ie, with malintent). Austrian courts decide by means of determinations ( Beschlüsse ) and judgments ( Urteile ). Determinations generally deal with procedural issues and order meas - ures, and can dispose of a claim if it is rejected for procedural reasons. Judgments are decisions on a claim based on its merits. Generally, a judgment will finally decide on the subject matter of a dispute in its entirety. However, under vari - ous circumstances (usually related to the complexity of the case), the courts may decide on the matter in several steps and issue interlocutory, partial or sup - plementary judgments. 2. Domestic Judgments 2.1 Types of Domestic Judgments An interlocutory judgment ( Zwischenurteil ) (Section 393 of the CCP) ultimately serves to structure pro - ceedings into various phases by first deciding on an issue that needs to be clarified in order for a final deci - sion to be rendered. In most cases, the aim will be to determine whether a claim is, in principle, justified on the merits (without review of quantum). There are two types of interlocutory judgments that must be distin - guished in terms of their binding effect: • a “simple” interlocutory judgment, which only has binding effect on the court itself within the pro - ceedings; and • a “declaratory” interlocutory judgment upon the application of a party, which is a genuine declara - tory judgment and therefore has binding effect between the parties.
In both cases, an interlocutory judgment is not enforceable. A partial judgment ( Teilurteil ) (Section 391 of the CCP) may be employed if multiple (unrelated) claims (or claims and counterclaims) are raised within one action or if the claim is otherwise severable. A partial judg - ment can then, for example, be rendered regarding: • individual (counter)claims that are ready for deci - sion; or • parts of a (counter)claim that have been acknowl - edged by the defendant. A partial judgment has the effect of a final judgment and is fully enforceable. A supplementary judgment ( Ergänzungsurteil ) (Section 423 of the CCP) is rendered upon the application of a party if the court failed to initially deal with all claims raised in their entirety or failed to render a decision on costs. A supplementary judgment has the effect of a final judgment and is fully enforceable. Judgments can also be distinguished and have differ - ent effects based on the nature of the relief granted. A performance judgment ( Leistungsurteil ) contains a performance order that can relate to the performance of payment or specific performance. Specific per - formance includes an order of positive action by the defendant, an order to the defendant to tolerate an action of the plaintiff, or an order to the defendant to cease and desist. A performance judgment is always enforceable. However, attention must be paid to for - mulate the request so that relief shall be granted in a manner that is clear and specific as to what the performance shall be. A constitutive judgment ( Rechtsgestaltungsurteil ) directly affects the rights of the parties and changes the legal situation directly. A constitutive judgment establishes, amends or nullifies a legal relationship between the parties. This effect is automatic as soon as the judgment is final and binding. Accordingly, a constitutive judgment does not require enforcement.
13 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Patrizia Netal, Katrin Hanschitz and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL
A declaratory judgment ( Feststellungsurteil ) clarifies the existence or non-existence of a legal relationship or right. It may also be requested to establish the authenticity or falseness of a document. A declaratory judgment can be relied upon but cannot be enforced. If one party refrains from participating in the proceed - ings and, in particular, fails to appear in court, the court may – upon request of the other party that is not in default – render a default judgment ( Versäumung- surteil ) (Section 396 of the CCP). If the non-defaulting party fails to make such an application, the proceed - ings are suspended. The main prerequisite is that the defaulting party has properly been served with a writ – ie, the party is aware that it is required to file a written submis - sion or appear in court. Moreover, the defaulting party has various legal remedies against the default judg - ment at its disposal. However, if no action is taken, the default judgment becomes final and binding and is fully enforceable. 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments Austrian enforcement proceedings are bifurcated into two steps: • authorisation proceedings ( Exekutionsbewilligung ); and • the actual enforcement ( Exekutionsvollzug ). Both fall within the competence of the enforcement court. The prerequisite for enforcement is an enforceable title, such as the judgment of a court that has been formally confirmed as enforceable (usually by means of an official stamp). Such confirmations are issued by the court that rendered the judgment, once the judgment has become final and binding (no further appeal possible) and the performance period (in which the judgment debtor has the opportunity to voluntarily comply with the judgment) has expired. For the sake of completeness, under Austrian law, an enforcement title ( Exekutionstitel ) is not only a judg - ment but may also, inter alia, be a public deed or an enforceable notarial deed. In all cases, the enforce -
ment title must be sufficiently specific – ie, allow the court of enforcement to clearly determine what the creditor is entitled to receive. Once a creditor has obtained an enforceable title, it can apply for enforcement at: • the competent district court at the debtor’s domi - cile; • the location of the asset that is the subject of the enforcement; • the place where the act of enforcement will take place; or • in cases of garnishment orders, the third party’s domicile. The application for enforcement is done by means of official standard forms. The court of enforcement will only examine the for - mal requirements based upon the application. If it is satisfied that all formal requirements are met, it will authorise enforcement by means of a court order. There is also a simplified enforcement authorisation procedure that does not require the submission of the enforceable title. This simplified procedure is only applicable to Austrian judgments where the value of the claim to be enforced does not exceed EUR50,000. In Austria, actual enforcement – ie, implementation of the enforcement measures – also falls within the competence of the courts and its officers. There is no private enforcement. Enforcement Measures Austrian law provides for a number of enforcement measures and allows the creditor to choose which enforcement measure(s) shall be implemented (and to combine several measures, if this is appropriate). However, only those enforcement measures listed in the EA are available. Furthermore, certain enforce - ment measures are only available for certain types of claims. The available enforcement measures are cat - egorised according to whether they serve to enforce either monetary claims or specific actions of the debtor.
14 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Patrizia Netal, Katrin Hanschitz and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL
Enforcement of Monetary Claims Monetary claims can be enforced by means of meas - ures directed against immovable property ( Liegen- schaftsexekution ), measures directed against mov - able property ( Fahrnisexekution ), claims of the debtor against third parties ( Forderungsexekution ), or rights such as IP ( Rechteexektuion ). Movable property constitutes all objects that can be moved from one place to another without damaging their substance. An application for the enforcement of monetary claims that does not specify the measure by which the claim shall be enforced will be understood to be an applica - tion for a “simple enforcement package”. The predominant enforcement measures available are as follows. Enforcement package (Sections 19 and 20 of the EA) The “simple enforcement package” (Section 19 of the EA) entails a mix of measures directed against mov - able property, as well as the attachment of earnings and the drawing-up of a record of assets. It always applies when the creditor does not request specific enforcement measures. The law also provides for an “extended enforce - ment package” (Section 20 of the EA), setting out the appointment of an administrator. The administra - tor must, with the involvement of the debtor, identify potential assets that may satisfy the claim and docu - ment these in an inventory. To do so, the adminis - trator shall have access to relevant registers and the records of the debtor. In addition, the administrator may order the debtor to draw up a record of assets and to disclose them. An application for an extended enforcement package is only admissible if the credi - tor’s monetary claim exceeds EUR10,000 or if the “simple enforcement package” has failed. Once an extended enforcement package is applied for and granted to one creditor, any further creditors with later applications will be joined to these enforcement proceedings. Effectively, these creditors will benefit from the fact that assets have already been identified
and attached. However, the later applications will also be subordinated to the claims of the creditor whose application was earlier. Establishment of lien (Section 88 et seq of the EA) This measure does not directly lead to the satisfac - tion of the claim of the enforcing creditor but merely secures the subsequent satisfaction of the enforce - able claim in the rank of incorporation as entered into the Land Registry (meaning it does not give priority over pre-existing liens). It is usually combined with other measures. Foreclosure (Section 133 et seq of the EA) This measure leads to the auction of the debtor’s real estate by the court. The order of the court will prompt - ly be entered into the Land Register, thus barring any subsequent transactions that would affect the proper - ty. However, the creditor does not obtain priority over pre-existing liens, etc. In the actual enforcement, the court will have the property appraised by an expert and set an auction date; both the appraisal and the date of the auction are made public. The auction itself will be carried out by the judge in a court hearing. The lowest bid is half of the appraised value. The highest bidder wins the auction. Administration (Section 97 et seq of the EA) The measure of administration aims to satisfy the claim from the proceeds of the administration of a property (such as rental income) or a part of a prop - erty of the debtor. The measure will be recorded in the Land Registry and restricts certain rights of the debtor regarding the administration of the property, as the court will appoint a receiver for this purpose. The measure is terminated as soon as the creditor’s monetary claim has been satisfied. Attachment and auction (Section 249 et seq of the EA) This measure leads to the court-ordered seizure of the debtor’s property, followed by a public auction (in a licensed auction house). The objects are seized by means of describing them and recording them in a list. The destruction, damage or removal of already seized items is punishable by law, so the objects are only physically seized if so requested by the credi - tor. Certain objects of personal use (that allow for a
15 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Patrizia Netal, Katrin Hanschitz and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL
decent but modest lifestyle), of emotional value (such as family photos) or covering basic needs (food for four weeks) may not be seized. The auction proce - dure is similar to that described under “Foreclosure (Section 133 et seq of the EA)” regarding immovable property. Surrender of specific property (Section 346 et seq of the EA) This measure is directed against a specific movable object. The officer of the court may seize the precisely defined movable object and hand it over to the credi - tor against a receipt. In most cases, monetary claims of the debtor against third parties are claims against banks holding accounts of the debtor and attachment of earnings (salary or wages) of the debtor. However, the debtor must be left with an amount that is equivalent to the minimum subsistence level (defined by law). Attachment and collection (Section 289 et seq of the EA) This measure consists of two orders: one forbidding the third-party debtor to make payment to the debtor (prohibition of payment) and another forbidding the debtor from disposing of its claim against the third- party debtor (prohibition of disposal). The third-party debtor is subsequently obliged to provide the court with any relevant information regarding the attached claim (such as assignment of the claim or attach - ments by other creditors; in the case of an employer, known family maintenance obligations of the debtor) and is liable for damages incurred by the creditor due to incorrect or incomplete information. The collection (and then transfer to the creditor) is generally effected by bank transfer. Rights or intangible assets of the debtor may also be the subject of enforcement proceedings. The most common cases are IP or shares in companies. Attachment and exploitation (Section 327 et seq of the EA) As a first step, this measure entails attachment of the right and an order forbidding the debtor from dispos - ing of this right. The actual measures that shall allow the creditor to recover its monies depend on the right.
By way of example, the court may order a patent to be subject to receivership (allowing the creditor to collect any licence fees) or that the patent shall be subject to administration (including the right to grant licences – again, allowing the creditor to collect any monies paid for such licences). The court may (ultimately) also order sale of the patent (allowing the creditor to be satisfied from the proceeds). Enforcement of Non-Monetary Claims Non-monetary claims are, in general, specific acts that the debtor is obliged to undertake (or cease and desist from). Substitution of the act (Section 353 et seq of the EA) This measure obliges the debtor to undertake an act within a specified time. If the debtor fails to do so, the creditor may have this act performed by another person and request enforcement of the costs incurred as a monetary claim. Penalisation for failure to comply (Section 353 et seq of the EA) If the act can only be performed by the debtor or if the debtor violates its obligation to cease and desist, the court will first threaten – and can then impose – penal - ties in the form of fines or imprisonment. Special Scenario: Insolvency of the Debtor The 2021 amendment of the EA introduced an inter - section between enforcement and insolvency law (Section 49a of the EA). The underlying aim of the legislature was to ensure that debtors that are unable to pay are removed from enforcement proceedings that are directed against debtors that are unwilling to pay. Accordingly, enforcement officers or administra - tors appointed to execute an “extended enforcement package” must alert the enforcement court if they find – in the course of identifying assets – that the debtor is evidently insolvent. In these cases, the enforcement of already granted measures shall be stayed, unless assets have already been attached in the creditor’s favour or statutory liens exist. After giving both the debtor and the creditor(s) an opportunity to be heard, the enforcement court shall decide on the insolvency of the debtor.
16 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Patrizia Netal, Katrin Hanschitz and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL
Once this decision declaring insolvency has become final and is no longer subject to appeal, it is published in the Insolvency Register. The creditor may then initi - ate insolvency proceedings. The proceedings are gov - erned by the specific provisions that apply in insol - vency proceedings, which aim to ensure fair allocation of the assets to the creditors. 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments In general, enforcement proceedings are concluded quickly and effectively by Austrian courts. The authori - sation process takes place ex parte and a decision is often rendered within a week or two. Should the deci - sion authorising enforcement be appealed, it may take between two and six months to obtain a final decision. Regarding the actual enforcement process, much depends on the measure chosen; foreclosure and the auction of real estate will take longer than an attach - ment of earnings. The costs for enforcement comprise lawyers’ fees, a possible advance to cover the costs of actual enforce - ment measures (such as obtaining an appraisal of the value of real estate to be auctioned or the fees of an administrator who receives a percentage of the recov - ered amounts) and court fees. Court fees for enforcement amount to approximately 0.25% to 0.3% of the amount to be enforced. Should the decision on enforcement be subject to appeal, the court fees are approximately 0.4% to 0.45%. Should a further recourse to the Austrian Supreme Court – which is limited – be permissible, the court fees are approximately 0.5% to 0.6% of the amount to be enforced. All available means to identify defendants’ assets are described in 1.1 Options to Identify Another Party’s Asset Position . 2.5 Challenging Enforcement of Domestic Judgments 2.4 Post-Judgment Procedures for Determining Defendants’ Assets The decision to grant (or deny) enforcement is subject to appeal, which must be raised within 14 days of
service of the decision on the party. This ensures the debtor’s right to be heard because the authorisation of enforcement proceedings is generally granted ex parte. Overall, Austrian enforcement law is “creditor-friend - ly”, which is also reflected in the fact that legal rem - edies against decisions of the enforcement court do not generally have a suspensory effect. However, it is possible to request a stay of enforcement measures together with the appeal. There are three actions that lead to the suspension of enforcement proceedings: • opposition on substantive grounds ( Opposition- sklage ) (Section 35 of the EA) – if the debtor asserts circumstances that occurred after the rendering of the judgment on the main claim that annul the substantive claim or at least lead to postponement of enforcement (eg, full performance, deferment of performance); • opposition on formal grounds ( Impugnationsklage ) (Section 36 of the EA) – if the debtor asserts cir - cumstances according to which the prerequisites for enforcement are not (yet) given (eg, the perfor - mance period determined in the judgment on the main claim has not lapsed); and • third-party action ( Exzindierungsklage ) (Sec - tion 37 of the EA) – if, in fact, the object against which enforcement measures are directed does not belong to the debtor, the entitled third party can obtain a declaration of inadmissibility of the enforcement measure (which is then repealed) by showing its entitlement. If the conditions for enforcement are no longer met, the enforcement may be discontinued (or limited) upon application or ex officio. 2.6 Unenforceable Domestic Judgments A constitutive judgment does not require enforcement. A declaratory judgment can be relied upon but cannot be enforced (see 2.1 Types of Domestic Judgments ). 2.7 Register of Domestic Judgments In Austria, judgments are not freely accessible to the public. There is no central repository of judgments but
17 CHAMBERS.COM
Page i Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199Powered by FlippingBook