Enforcement of foreign judgements in Germany

How are judgements from EU Member States enforced?

As a general rule, the Brussels Ia Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, i.e. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, applies to judgments in civil and commercial matters from other EU Member States. In relation to Denmark, the largely corresponding application is based on a separate agreement with the European Union. A judgment given in another EU Member State is recognised in Germany without the need for any special procedure. If it is enforceable in the state of origin, it may, in principle, also be enforced in Germany without a prior declaration of enforceability.

The creditor usually requires a copy of the decision and the certificate issued by the court of origin in accordance with Article 53 of the Regulation. Before the first enforcement measure is taken, the certificate must, in principle, be served on the debtor, and the judgment must also be served where necessary. A translation may be required if it is necessary to safeguard the debtor’s rights of defence.

Whilst the abolition of the former exequatur procedure speeds up access to enforcement, it does not remove all grounds for objection. For example, the debtor may apply for a refusal of recognition or enforcement. The grounds for this are strictly limited and relate, for example, to irreconcilable decisions, certain defects in service in the case of judgments by default, or a manifest breach of public policy.

Which decisions are not covered by the Brussels Ia Regulation?

The Regulation applies to civil and commercial matters. Certain matters are excluded, including, in particular, tax and customs matters, administrative matters, insolvency proceedings, arbitration and large parts of family and succession law. Other European, international or national rules apply to these areas.

The temporal scope of application must also be examined. Pursuant to Article 66 of the Brussels Ia Regulation, the Regulation generally applies to proceedings commenced on or after 10 January 2015. In the case of older proceedings, the predecessor Regulation may still apply. For judgments from the newer EU Member States, therefore, the date of accession must be taken into account, and for those from the United Kingdom, the date of withdrawal.

Transitional cases involving the United Kingdom

For proceedings commenced before the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, the Brussels rules may continue to apply under the Withdrawal Agreement. In relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union, however, Article 16 of the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention applies only if the proceedings were commenced in the state of origin at a time when the Convention was in force between the two states. For UK cases, this is generally 1 July 2025 or a later date. During the intervening periods, the 2005 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, in particular, or autonomous German law may be relevant.

A hasty classification as an ‘EU judgment’ may lead to incorrect procedural steps. Before enforcement begins, the subject-matter of the dispute, the date on which the proceedings commenced, any agreement on the choice of forum and the territorial scope of application should be documented.

What applies to Switzerland, Norway and Iceland?

With regard to Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, the 2007 Lugano Convention must generally be taken into account. Its structure is similar to that of the Brussels I Regulation. Unlike Brussels I, however, a procedure for a declaration of enforceability is generally still required.

In Germany, the procedure is supplemented by the Recognition and Enforcement Act. The initial assessment is largely a formal one. The debtor may raise grounds for refusal in appeal proceedings. The precise jurisdiction and the required documents are determined by the relevant convention and implementing legislation.

The Lugano Convention does not automatically apply to all European states outside the EU. For example, following Brexit, the United Kingdom has not acceded to it as a separate contracting party. Other instruments must therefore be examined for British judgments (see above).

With or without exequatur: Which court has jurisdiction?

The enforcement procedures differ depending on whether or not a specific authorisation procedure is required before German assets can be seized.

• Brussels Ia Regulation: No exequatur procedure is required. In principle, the covered EU instrument may be enforced immediately with the certificate in accordance with Article 53.
• Both the 2007 Lugano Convention and the AVAG provide for a declaration of enforceability. Pursuant to Section 3(1) of the AVAG, the Regional Court has exclusive jurisdiction in this matter.
• For other third countries, the following applies under autonomous law: the creditor generally requires an enforcement judgement pursuant to Section 722 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). Pursuant to Section 722(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), jurisdiction lies with either the Local Court or the Regional Court at the debtor’s general place of jurisdiction, or alternatively at the place of jurisdiction for the debtor’s assets pursuant to Section 23 of the ZPO, depending on the value of the claim.

The term ‘exequatur’ is interpreted in various ways in practice. What is decisive is not the term itself, but whether the foreign judgment can be enforced directly, must be declared enforceable by order, or requires a German enforcement order.

What is the significance of the Hague Conventions?

The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements strengthens exclusive choice of court agreements in international civil and commercial matters. It generally obliges the chosen court to give a judgment and facilitates the recognition and enforcement of a judgment based on such an agreement in other contracting states. Whether the Convention applies depends, amongst other things, on the form, exclusivity, date of conclusion and material scope of the choice of court agreement.

The 2019 Hague Convention on Judgements establishes a more comprehensive recognition regime for certain civil and commercial matters. It has applied in Germany since 1 September 2023 via the European Union, whilst for the United Kingdom it entered into force on 1 July 2025. Under Article 16, it covers only judgments arising from proceedings instituted at a time when the Convention was already in force between the State of origin and the State of enforcement.

The Convention does not cover all judgments. It contains exclusions and conditions for recognition which must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. For older British proceedings or matters not covered by the Convention, it may therefore still be necessary, in certain circumstances, to rely on other treaties or autonomous German law.

How are judgements from other third countries treated?

In the absence of overriding European legislation or international treaties, Sections 328, 722 and 723 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) generally apply. Recognition takes place in accordance with Section 328 of the ZPO, whilst enforcement under Section 722 of the ZPO requires a German enforcement order.

In doing so, the German court does not conduct new proceedings on the substantive correctness of the foreign judgment. Under Section 723 of the ZPO, a review on the merits is, in principle, precluded. However, the court does examine whether the foreign decision is final and binding under the law of the state of origin and whether there are any obstacles to recognition under Section 328 of the ZPO.

The procedure takes the form of an action brought before the competent German court. The creditor must submit the foreign judgment, together with proof of its finality and, where applicable, proof of service, as well as the necessary translations. Consequently, the preparatory work often takes longer than in the case of an EU title.

What obstacles to recognition exist outside the EU?

The grounds for refusal set out in Section 328 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) are intended to prevent a foreign judgment from being recognised where fundamental requirements relating to jurisdiction or procedure have not been met. This does not involve a re-examination of the substantive correctness of the judgment, but rather clearly defined obstacles to recognition.

Recognition will not be granted if, under German law, the courts of the state in which the judgment was given did not have international jurisdiction. Similarly, recognition will be refused if the defendant did not enter into the proceedings because the statement of claim was not served on them properly or in sufficient time to enable them to defend themselves. A ground for refusal also exists if the judgment contradicts an earlier domestic or recognised foreign decision, or is incompatible with proceedings that were previously pending. Finally, recognition is refused if it would lead to a result that is manifestly incompatible with fundamental principles of German law. Finally, reciprocity must be guaranteed.

Why are service of process and the right to be heard so important?

Judgements in default are particularly vulnerable if the defendant was not informed of the foreign proceedings in good time. The creditor should therefore ensure, right from the outset of the original proceedings, that service is effected in a verifiable manner that is valid internationally. Any formal shortcut could later jeopardise the entire enforcement process.

As a general rule, the debtor must have been given sufficient time and information to be able to defend themselves. Translations, the method of service and actual receipt may all play a role in this regard.

Anyone wishing to enforce a foreign judgement in Germany should therefore secure complete service documentation at an early stage. After several years, it is often only possible to reconstruct and obtain proof of service, address enquiries or confirmations from the foreign court at considerable expense.

What documents are required?

The specific list of required documents depends on the applicable regime. As a rule, an enforceable or certified copy of the decision, proof of its enforceability or finality, proof of service, and a German translation are required. Under the Brussels Ia Regulation, the certificate referred to in Article 53 is particularly essential.

For foreign documents, an apostille or legalisation may be required. Whether such a certification of authenticity is required depends on the country of origin, the document and the applicable convention. If the court or enforcement authority so requires, translations should be carried out by a suitable person who is duly sworn or authorised. It is advisable to first have the document authenticated in the state of origin and then to have the certified translation carried out by a translator sworn in the state of enforcement. Only in this way will the translation also relate to the enforcement clause and be recognised by the enforcement court.

The content of the documents must correspond. Names, addresses, legal form and the amount owed should be stated unambiguously. Currency conversions, interest, costs and instalments must be presented in a clear and comprehensible manner. Any ambiguities in the title may delay enforcement, even though recognition on the merits is not an issue.

How is enforcement carried out following recognition or a declaration of enforceability?

If there is an enforceable title in Germany, the German rules on enforcement generally apply. As with domestic cases, depending on the type of assets, options may include the attachment of bank accounts and claims, the seizure of property, the creation of a compulsory security mortgage or a compulsory auction. A foreign enforcement order does not confer any special right of access to assets that are exempt from attachment under German law.

An asset search should not be delayed until the end of the recognition proceedings. Extracts from the commercial register, land register information, known bank details, claims against customers and group structures can significantly influence the strategy. Where there is a specific risk, it must be assessed whether protective measures are permissible even before the conclusion of the main proceedings.

Even after a judgment has been issued, objections to the claim may become relevant, for example through settlement or set-off against counter-claims arising at a later date. The legal remedies available depend on the recognition regime and the timing of the objection.

Why should enforcement be planned even before the claim is brought?

A judgement against a company with no assets is of little economic value. Before initiating proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction, it is therefore important to ascertain where the debtor’s assets are located and what recognition regime applies there. The place of jurisdiction can have a significant impact on the subsequent enforceability of the judgement.

In the case of international contracts, it may be worth considering arbitration. Arbitral awards are enforceable in many countries under the New York Convention. Whilst this does not mean that arbitration is always the preferable option, it does broaden the range of options available when assets are spread across several third countries.

The choice of jurisdiction, the service of process clause and the debtor’s structure are therefore interlinked. Enforceability is not an issue to be considered only after the judgement has been handed down, but forms part of the original contractual and litigation strategy.