Answer ... As regards EU judgments, defective service constitutes grounds to refuse enforcement of a default judgment (Article 45(1)(b) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation). Furthermore, for the purposes of enforcement of ex parte measures, the Brussels I Recast Regulation requires that the applicant provide proof of service, among other things (Article 42(2)(c)).
As regards non-EU judgments, the regularity of service of the proceedings is among the requirements for recognition and enforcement (Article 64(1)(b) of Law 218/1995).
Answer ... As regards EU judgments, there is limited scope to review the jurisdiction of the foreign court under Article 45(1)(e) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation. Recognition of a judgment shall be refused if the judgment conflicts with certain rules on jurisdiction set out in the regulation itself.
As regards non-EU judgments, the court shall assess whether the foreign court had jurisdiction over the dispute in accordance with the rules governing jurisdiction set out in Italian law.
Answer ... Both the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Article 45(1)(a)) and Law 218/1995 (Article 64(1)(g)) allow the court to assess the effects of recognition of a foreign judgment on public policy. However, as regards EU judgments, the court cannot review the case ruled on by the court of the state of origin.
Answer ... As regards EU judgments, the Brussels I Recast Regulation provides that under no circumstances may a judgment issued in a member state be reviewed as to its substance by the member state addressed (Brussels I Recast Regulation Article 52).
As regards non-EU judgments, Law 218/1995 contains no express prohibition against the court reviewing the merits. However, none of the requirements for recognition and enforcement set out in Article 64 requires the court to carry out a review in this respect.
Answer ... Under certain conditions, the fact that a foreign judgment conflicts with a previous judgment in relation to the same dispute between the same parties may be considered grounds for refusal of recognition, both under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Articles 45(1)(c) and (d)) and under Law 218/1995 (if the previous judgment was rendered by an Italian court) (Article 64(1)(e)).
Answer ... As regards EU judgments, it is questionable whether and to what extent the court can assess the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement set out in Article 45 on its own motion. In principle, since EU judgments are recognised and enforced without the need for exequatur, this question should be answered in the negative; although some believe that, nonetheless, the Italian courts can refuse to recognise or enforce a judgment based on the public policy limit on their own motion.
As regards non-EU judgments, it is understood that the court may also assess on its own motion whether the requirements for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment set out in Article 64 of Law 218/1995 have been satisfied. According to some scholars, this does not hold true with regard to the requirement relating to lack of jurisdiction set out in Article 64(1)(a).
Answer ... Yes, an EU or non-EU judgment may be partially recognised or enforced where it has been issued in respect of several matters and enforcement cannot be authorised for all of them.
Answer ... In the Italian legal system:
- generally, interest is awarded in the final judgment at the rate and from the date specified therein;
- with regard to costs, the ‘loser pays’ principle generally applies. However, in certain circumstances, the court may decide on a different allocation of costs (Article 92 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure); and
- if the sum due is determined in a currency that is not the legal tender in the state addressed, the debtor can pay in the legal currency at the exchange rate (Article 1278 of the Italian Civil Code).
It is worth considering that:
- generally, court fees are calculated on an ad valorem basis according to the monetary value of the claim. However, for some matters, court fees are fixed. Court fees are determined in accordance with a scale of costs updated by the legislature from time to time (DPR 115 of 30 May 2002); and
- some specific matters are exempt from court fees.