On July 1, 2025, the Hague Convention of July 2, 2019 (with the French and English
texts being authentic) on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments also
entered into force in the U.K., already in force since September 1, 2023 in the
European Union (excluding Denmark), Ukraine, and Uruguay (and from 2026 also in
Albania, Andorra, and Montenegro).
Brexit had in fact repealed the previous regime of EU Regulation (excluding
Denmark) no. 1215/2012 and the Lugano Convention of 2007 (to which the U.K. had
not acceded). Thus, the recognition procedure in the U.K. The new Italian judgments
replace the post-Brexit regime (after December 31, 2020) governed by the Foreign
Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement Act 1933), which required specific local legal
action to obtain recognition of an Italian judgment. This is still necessary for
judgments initiated between December 31, 2020, and July 1, 2025.
This makes it easier to use the exclusive choice of court agreement clauses of Italian
jurisdiction in favor of English jurisdiction, because it is possible to enforce Italian
judgments in the U.K. (and vice versa) ipso jure (primarily, payment obligations), i.e.
without review of the merits (exceptions apply).
The spirit and intent of the Convention is valuable as stated in its first five
introductory and preliminary paragraphs:
“The Contracting Parties to the present Convention,

  • Desiring to promote effective access to justice for all and to facilitate rule-based
    multi-lateral trade and investment, and mobility, through judicial co-operation,
  • Believing that such co-operation can be enhanced through the creation of a uniform
    set of core rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or
    commercial matters, to facilitate the effective recognition and enforcement of such
    judgments,
  • Convinced that such enhanced judicial co-operation requires, in particular, an
    international legal regime that provides greater predictability and certainty in
    relation to the global circulation of foreign judgments, and that is complementary to
    the Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements,
  • Have resolved to conclude this Convention to this effect and have agreed upon the
    following provisions –“.
    Article 1 of the Convention limits its application only to civil and commercial matters
    (not fiscal, customs, administrative, or criminal matters) decided by a judge of one of
    the Contracting States.

Article 2 excludes, among other matters, family law (including maintenance
obligations) and inheritance law, judicial liquidations and insolvency proceedings,
maritime pollution, arbitration, antitrust, the carriage of passengers and goods,
defamation, privacy, and other matters.
Article 3 defines: a) defendant: the person against whom the principal claim or
counterclaim is brought in the State of origin; b) judgment: any judicial order,
regardless of the various names used by individual States, excluding interim
measures of protection. Judicial settlements are considered equivalent to judgments.
The decision must (pursuant to Article 4) already be enforceable and final in the State
of origin and not be subject to review on the merits in other requested States party to
the Convention.
Article 5 lists 11 requirements, at least one of which must be met for the judgment to
be recognized and enforced. Among others, the primary requirement is the registered
residence of the natural person. Or of a legal person: a person is considered resident if
it has its headquarters or a branch, or its founding law, or its administration, or its
principal, prevalent, or otherwise significant activity in the territory of the State.
Or the place of performance of the obligation. The defendant’s consent to the
jurisdiction of the Court of origin in the proceedings that ended with the decision.
Or a decision on the lease of a Court of the State in which the real estate is located.
The related real rights. Or a decision on compensation for physical or material
damages for events, even if they occurred in other States.
Article 7 lists the few exceptions and safeguards to the Convention rule, such as a
violation of the defendant’s right to a fair hearing, a decision obtained by fraud, or
incompatibility with the public policy of the State in which it is to be enforced. A
judgment that has not yet become final in the State of origin or if lis pendens still
exists. Failure to notify the defendant or delaying notification, in any case
inconsistent with the fundamental principles governing documents in the requested
State. Or if incompatible with a judgment in a dispute between the same parties from
that State or another that meets the conditions for recognition required by the
Convention.
Pursuant to Article 12, a full, authenticated copy of the judgment must then be filed
in the requested State, along with the certificate of effectiveness and enforceability
issued by the judicial authority of the State of origin that issued it (and possibly a
sworn translation), such as the so-called “declaration of effectiveness and
enforceability.” “Apostille” (so-called exequatur procedure) by the Public
Prosecutor’s Office pursuant to the 1961 Hague Convention (to which the U.K. is a
party).

Article 13 establishes that “the court of the requested State must act expeditiously”
and refers to the laws of the individual States for the specific procedure to be
followed: for Italy, the Court of Appeal pursuant to Articles 67 of Law 218/1995 and
30 of Legislative Decree No. 150/2011, No. 2, now pursuant to Article 281 decies et
seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Finally, Article 16 of the Convention applies to legal proceedings initiated only after
its entry into force in both the State of origin and the State of enforcement. Therefore,
in the U.K., after July 1, 2025.