The enforcement of foreign judgments in Malta is governed by various international conventions and EU Regulations which generally supersede and prevail over domestic legislation regulating recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The following list sets out the legal framework for the enforcement of foreign judgements in Malta and the circumstances under which each instrument applies:

1. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (“Brussels I Recast”) – This EU regulation applies to the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, delivered by courts of EU Member States. Judgements delivered by the courts of an EU member state are recognised and enforceable in Malta without the need for a declaration of enforceability (exequatur).
2. Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (“Brussels I”) – This EU regulation is the predecessor of Regulation 1215/2012 and similarly applies to the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, delivered by courts of EU member states. Although this regulation has now been repealed, it still applies to judgements given in legal proceedings instituted in an EU member state prior to 10 January 2015.
3. Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (“EPO Regulation”) – The EPO Regulation creates a simplified procedure for the payment of pecuniary claims which have fallen due at the time when the application for a European order for payment is submitted. The creditor can obtain a European order for payment against the debtor which is recognised and enforceable in all member states.
4. Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (“EEO Regulation”)– This EU regulation creates a mechanism which allows the enforcement of uncontested claims across EU member states. Claims are considered uncontested if the debtor has explicitly agreed to them, failed to object to them, or did not appear in court to contest them despite being given the opportunity, resulting in a final judgment. Once the court of origin certifies a judgment as a European Enforcement Order, the judgement becomes enforceable across all EU member states in terms of the same EEO Regulation.
5. Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure – This EU regulation is applicable to all EU member states and provides a simplified and cost-effective way to resolve cross-border disputes involving small claims of a monetary value not exceeding €5,000. Judgments of the court of origin delivered under this procedure are recognised and enforceable in all EU member states without the need for a declaration of enforceability.
6. Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters (The Lugano Convention) – This applies to the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters between the EU and EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland). This convention is substantially similar to the EU Brussels I Regulation.
7. Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters (2019) – This international convention provides a framework for the recognition and enforcement of judgements between contracting states. Malta is a party to this convention, which therefore facilitates the enforcement of judgements from other contracting states under the specific conditions laid out in the convention.
8. British Judgements (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Chapter 52 of the Laws of Malta) is a domestic law enacted in 1924, which provides special rules on the recognition and enforcement of judgments between Malta and the United Kingdom (and a number of so called “British dominions outside the United Kingdom” including Gibraltar, New South Wales, Bermuda, Western Australia, State of Victoria, Tasmania and its Dependencies).
9. The Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure, Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta (“COCP”) provides rules on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in terms of Maltese law. – The COCP establishes the domestic civil procedure for the enforcement of foreign judgments in Malta from states where no other international legislation regulates such procedure.

Malta has generally adhered to the treaties and conventions on the enforcement of foreign judgements without significant reservations. As an EU member state, Malta fully implements the abovementioned EU regulations without reservations. Furthermore, Malta has not made any notable reservations regarding the Hague Conventions, which limit their application, however it must be stated that such conventions are subject to the conditions and limitations expressed within the conventions.

Yes, foreign judgements can be enforced in Malta even in the absence of a specific international convention, treaty, or arrangement. This is regulated by the general provisions of Maltese domestic law, particularly in terms of the aforementioned COCP.

Article 825A of the COCP stipulates that in the absence of specific regulations of the European Union on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, the provisions of Title V of the COCP: Enforcement of Judgments of Tribunals of Countries Outside Malta, shall apply.

Under article 826 of the COCP, a foreign judgment can only be enforced in Malta if:

1. The judgement is res judicata, therefore not subject to appeal according to the laws of the court of origin; and
2. The judgment was delivered by a competent court outside of Malta.

And following an application containing a demand to recognise and enforce such judgment.

The COCP does restrict the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments to only monetary judgments and does not offer a definition of the term “judgment”.

Under the Brussels I Recast Regulation, The Brussels I Regulation and the Lugano Convention, a “judgment” is defined as “any judgement given by a court or tribunal of a member state, whatever the judgement may be called, including 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”.

Brussels I Regulation (44/2001) and Lugano Convention:

The enforcement of foreign judgements which is regulated under the framework established by the Brussels I Regulation or the Lugano Convention, requires the following:

• A party in favour of whom a judgment was delivered shall apply to the court of origin for a certificate of enforceability pursuant to Article 54, which shall contain:

1. a certification that the judgment is enforceable;
2. an extract of the judgement; and
3. information as to the recoverable costs of the proceedings and the calculation of interests.

• An application (exequatur) must be filed before the First Hall of the Civil Court requesting recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgement.
• This application must be accompanied by an authenticated copy of the judgement, together with an authenticated English or Maltese translation of the said judgement.
• The application for the enforcement of a judgment from the Courts of an EU Member State must also be accompanied by the certificate of enforceability issued by the Court of origin according to Article 54.

Brussels I (Recast) Regulation (1215/2012):

Under the Brussels I Recast Regulation, a judgement delivered by a court of an EU member state will be recognised and enforced in other EU member states, including Malta, without the need for any special procedure. A party that wishes to enforce a judgement under this regulation must apply for a declaration of enforceability from the court of the member state of origin pursuant to article 53 certifying the judgement’s enforceability.

Where enforcement is sought of a judgment given in another Member State, the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53 shall be served on the person against whom the enforcement is sought prior to the first enforcement measure. The certificate shall be accompanied by the judgment, if not already served on that person. This is typically served in Malta by means of a judicial letter filed and served through the Courts before enforcement measures are taken.

Once the debtor is notified in the manner stipulated above, the enforcing party can apply to the court of Malta for the enforcement of the judgment by means of any of the executive acts available under Title VII or Part I of the COCP.

British Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act

The applicability of the procedure in the British Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act has been extended to apply to judgments from the United Kingdom, Gibraltar, New South Wales, Bermuda, Western Australia, State of Victoria, and Tasmania and its Dependencies (hereinafter collectively “States of Origin”). Where a judgment has been obtained in a superior court in any of the States of Origin, the judgment creditor wishing to enforce such judgment in Malta shall apply to the Maltese Court of Appeal to have the judgment registered. This law requires that a judgment is registered before it can be enforced.

Registration must be made within twelve months after the date of the judgment, or such longer period as may be allowed by the said Court of Appeal, to have the judgment registered in one of the Superior Courts of Malta.

Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure

The EPO Regulation allows creditors to obtain an enforceable order quickly and efficiently without going through traditional court proceedings. This procedure requires the claimant to submit an application to the Maltese Court with its claim using a standard form. If the application is correctly filled, the court issues a European Payment Order, which is served on the debtor by the Court and which the debtor can either pay or contest by means of a statement of opposition filed within 30 days.

If a statement of opposition is lodged within the stipulated period, the proceedings shall be transferred to the competent courts of the member state of origin.

If the EPO is not contested, the court of origin shall without delay declare the European order for payment enforceable using a standard form. Enforcement is then carried out in line with the law of the member state where enforcement is sought. An EPO which has become enforceable shall be enforced under the same conditions as an enforceable decision issued in the Member State of enforcement.

Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (the “EEO Regulation”)

The EEO Regulation applies to judgments, court settlements and authentic instruments on uncontested claims and to decisions delivered following challenges to judgments, court settlements and authentic instruments certified as European Enforcement Orders. In order to enforce an EEO in Malta, the claimant shall apply to the Court of origin to have an Annex I Certificate (hereinafter the “EEO Certificate”) issued in terms of the EEO Regulation. A judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order shall be enforced under the same conditions as a judgment handed down in the Member State of enforcement (i.e. Malta). In order to enforce the EEO in Malta, the judgment creditor needs to present (a) a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity; and (b) a copy of the EEO Certificate which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity; and (c) where necessary, a transcription of the European Enforcement Order certificate or a translation thereof into the official language of the Member State of enforcement (i.e. Maltese or English).

Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure

Under this regulation, the claimant shall the initiate the European Small Claims Procedure by filling a standard claim form annexed to the regulation itself. The form must include details about the claim, supporting evidence, and the value of the claim. Once the court of origin accepts the claim form, it serves the form and supporting documents on the defendant. The defendant has 30 days to respond by submitting a response form, counterclaims, or indicating any intention to contest the claim. Upon receiving the defendant’s response, the court of origin has 30 days to either issue a judgment or request further information from the parties.

Once delivered, the judgment is automatically recognised and enforceable in Malta without the need for a declaration of enforceability. The claimant can enforce the judgment in Malta by presenting a copy of the judgment and, if necessary, a translation.

Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters (2019)

Judgments eligible for enforcement in terms of Article 5 of this Convention shall be enforceable in Malta in line with the provisions of the same Convention. The procedure for recognition, declaration of enforceability or registration for enforcement, and the enforcement of the judgment, are governed by the law of the requested State (i.e. the laws of Malta) unless this Convention provides otherwise. Therefore, the provisions on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in the COCP apply insofar as no other law (such as Brussels I Recast applies e.g. between EU Member States).

The party seeking recognition and enforcement will need to produce (a) a complete and certified copy of the judgment; (b) if the judgment was given by default, the original or a certified copy of a document establishing that the document which instituted the proceedings or an equivalent document was notified to the defaulting party; (c) any documents necessary to establish that the judgment has effect or, where applicable, is enforceable in the State of origin; (d) in the case referred to in Article 11, a certificate of a court (including an officer of the court) of the State of origin stating that the judicial settlement or a part of it is enforceable in the same manner as a judgment in the State of origin. If the terms of the judgment do not permit the court addressed to verify whether the conditions of this Chapter have been complied with, that court may require any necessary documents.

An application for recognition or enforcement may be accompanied by a document relating to the judgment, issued by a court (including an officer of the court) of the State of origin, in the form recommended and published by the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

If the documents referred to in this Article are not in an official language of the requested State, they shall be accompanied by a certified translation into an official language, unless the law of the requested State provides otherwise.

In all the above procedures, once enforcement is ordered by the Maltese Court, the claimant can proceed to enforce through any of the enforcement measures under the provisions of the COCP.

The enforcement of foreign judgements which is not regulated under any specific international regulation or convention, shall be regulated under Title V of the COCP, which requires the following;

• An application (exequatur) filed before the court requesting the judgement’s recognition and enforcement in Malta;
• A certified copy of the foreign judgement and a certified translation of the judgement into Maltese or English, and
• Certification/Evidence that the judgement is a res judicata.

The application shall be served on the judgment debtor who has the right to file a reply, and a court date shall be appointed where both parties will be given the opportunity to make submissions and present any evidence (if and to the extent necessary). The court’s subsequent judgment is subject to appeal.

Certified and apostilled copies of the foreign judgment, translated into either Maltese or English (as the official languages of Malta) in enforcement proceedings are typically presented as best evidence of the foreign judgment to the Maltese Court.

It is difficult to provide a set time-frame for the duration of proceedings for the enforcement of a foreign judgement. The duration of such proceedings will ultimately depend on numerous factors, such as the instrument used to enforce the judgement, whether any challenge against such enforcement is lodged, and the complexity underlying any such challenge. There is no specific summary procedure.

Brussels I Recast Regulation and Lugano Convention: In the context of the enforcement of a foreign judgement under Brussels I Recast Regulation or the Lugano Convention, an application may be filed before the Maltese Courts for the issuance of provisional, including protective, measures pending the decision the enforcement of such judgement.

Other regimes: In the context of enforcement under the other available legal regimes such as the COCP, the Hague Judgements Convention and the British Judgements (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, there is no express right for the issuance of interim relief pending enforcement. However, in terms of Maltese law interim measures in the form of ‘precautionary warrants’ may be issued (in line with applicable rules) to restrain the disposal of assets etc, as long as the applicant brings an action in respect of the right protected in the warrant within twenty days from the issue of the warrant. In this regard, the party seeking the enforcement of the foreign judgement may file an application for the issuance of a precautionary warrant (in terms of the COCP) and subsequently proceed to file the exequatur for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgement, although this may be contested.

Under the Brussels Regulation, the Brussels Recast Regulation and the Lugano Convention, there is no limitation period for the recognition and enforcement of a judgement, insofar as the judgment remains valid and enforceable before the court of origin.

In terms of the COCP generally, which applies to Maltese judgements (and arguably non-EU judgments), there is a general limitation period of 15 years within which a judgement must be enforced. Once this period has elapsed, an application must be filed before the court to request that the judgement be enforced.

Brussels I Recast Regulation

The recognition and enforcement of a judgement under Brussels I Recast may be challenged on the basis of the grounds listed under Article 45, namely:

1. if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) of Malta;
2. where the judgment was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so;
3. if the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given between the same parties in Malta;
4. if the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another Member State or in a third State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in Malta; or
5. if the judgement conflicts with the provisions laid down in the Regulation concerning:

• exclusive jurisdiction; or
• special jurisdiction for insurance, consumers’ contract and contract of employment where the policyholder, the insured, a beneficiary of the insurance contract, the injured party, the consumer or the employee is the defendant.

Lugano Convention

The recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment can be contested in terms of the Lugano Convention on the basis of the grounds listed under articles 34 and 35 of the same Convention. The grounds listed under the Lugano Convention generally mirror those listed under article 45 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, with the exception of the ground of refusal concerning judgements which conflict with the provisions dealing with special jurisdiction for contracts of employment, which is solely found under the Brussels I Recast Regulation.

 British Judgements (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act

The recognition and enforcement of a judgement under the British Judgements (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act be challenged on the basis of the following grounds:

1. the original court acted without jurisdiction; or
2. the judgment debtor, being a person who was neither carrying on business nor ordinarily resident within the jurisdiction of the original court, did not voluntarily appear or otherwise submit, or agree to submit to the jurisdiction of that court; or
3. the judgment debtor, being the defendant in the proceedings, was not duly served with the process of the original court, and did not appear, notwithstanding that he was ordinarily resident or was carrying on business within the jurisdiction of that court or agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of that court; or
4. the judgment was obtained by fraud; or
5. the judgment debtor satisfies the registering court either that an appeal is pending, or that he is entitled, and intends to appeal against the judgment; or
6. the judgment was in respect of a cause of action which for reasons of public policy or for some other similar reason, could not have been entertained by the registering court.

Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters (2019)

The recognition and enforcement of a judgement under the Hague Judgements Convention may be challenged on the basis of the grounds listed under article 7 of the Convention, namely:

1. the document which instituted the proceedings or an equivalent document, including a statement of the essential elements of the claim –

• was not notified to the defendant in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable them to arrange for their defence, unless the defendant entered an appearance and presented their case without contesting notification in the court of origin, provided that the law of the State of origin permitted notification to be contested; or
• was notified to the defendant in Malta in a manner that is incompatible with fundamental principles of Malta concerning service of documents;

1. the judgment was obtained by fraud;
2. recognition or enforcement would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of Malta, including situations where the specific proceedings leading to the judgment were incompatible with fundamental principles of procedural fairness of that State and situations involving infringements of security or sovereignty of that State;
3. the proceedings in the court of origin were contrary to an agreement, or a designation in a trust instrument, under which the dispute in question was to be determined in a court of a State other than the State of origin;
4. the judgment is inconsistent with a judgment given by a court of Malta in a dispute between the same parties; or
5. the judgment is inconsistent with an earlier judgment given by a court of another State between the same parties on the same subject matter, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in Malta.
6. Recognition or enforcement may be postponed or refused if proceedings between the same parties on the same subject matter are pending before a court of Malta, where:

• the Maltese court was seized before the court of origin; and
• there is a close connection between the dispute and Malta.

Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure

The enforcement of a foreign judgment under the provisions of the COCP may be contested on the basis of the grounds set out in Article 811 and 827 of the COCP, namely:

1. Where the judgement was obtained by fraud on the part of any of the parties to the prejudice of the other party;
2. Where the sworn application was not served on the party cast, provided that, notwithstanding such omission, such party shall not have entered an appearance at the trial;
3. Where any of the parties to the suit was under legal disability to sue or be sued, provided no plea thereanent had been raised and determined;
4. Where the judgment was delivered by a court having no jurisdiction, provided no plea thereanent had been raised and determined;
5. Where the judgment contains a wrong application of the law;
6. Where judgment was extra petita;
7. Where judgment was ultra petita;
8. Where the judgment is conflicting with a previous judgment given in a suit on the same subject-matter and between the same parties, and constituting a res judicata, provided no plea of res judicata had been raised and determined;
9. Where the judgment contains contradictory dispositions;
10. Where the judgment was based on evidence which, in a subsequent judgment, was declared to be false or which was so declared in a previous judgment but the party cast was not aware of such fact;
11. Where, after the judgment, some conclusive document was obtained, of which the party producing it had no knowledge, or which, with the means provided by law, he could not have produced, before the judgment;
12. Where the judgment was the effect of an error resulting from the proceedings or documents of the cause;
13. In the case of a default judgement, if the parties were not contumacious according to foreign law; or
14. If the judgement contains any disposition contrary to public policy or to the internal public law of Malta.

It is not possible to review a foreign judgment as to its merits/substance if it meets all the formal requirements under the Brussels Recast Regulation, Lugano Convention, British Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, Hague Judgements Convention or the COCP, as the case may be. Judgments may be refused if the recognition and enforcement would be in manifest breach of public policy in Malta (ordre public) in terms of Brussels I Recast, although this does not justify a reconsideration of the merits (revision au fond). The COCP also provides that a judgment may be refused “if the judgment contains any disposition contrary to public policy or to the internal public law of Malta.”

Brussels I Recast Regulation

In accordance with Article 45(3) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the Maltese courts are in principle precluded from reviewing the jurisdiction of the court of origin, saving for the review of special and exclusive jurisdiction as provided under Brussels I Recast Regulation. However, when examining the grounds of jurisdiction, the Maltese Courts will be bound by the findings of fact on which the court of origin based its jurisdiction.

Lugano Convention

In accordance with Article 35(3) of the Lugano Convention, the Maltese courts are in principle precluded from reviewing the jurisdiction of the court of origin, saving for the review of exclusive jurisdiction and special jurisdiction for insurance and consumer contracts as provided under the Lugano Convention. However, when examining the grounds of jurisdiction, the Maltese Courts will be bound by the findings of fact on which the court of origin based its jurisdiction.

Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure and British Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act

Under Maltese law, judgements enforced under the British Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act and the COCP can be challenged, inter alia, on the basis of lack of jurisdiction of the foreign court. A plea to the jurisdiction of the court of origin of the foreign judgment, may be raised to challenge the recognition and enforcement, even though that court may have adjudged upon a plea to its jurisdiction. This applies in the case of any action brought against any person not subject to the jurisdiction of that court by reason of domicile or residence, unless such person had voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction thereof

Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters (2019)

Under the Hague Judgements Convention, the lack of jurisdiction of the foreign Court is not listed as a ground for the refusal of enforcement of a foreign judgement, therefore, when enforcement is sought under the Convention, the Maltese Courts will not be able to review the jurisdiction of the foreign court. The rules on eligibility of recognition and enforcement of judgments under this convention, however also partially deal with jurisdiction.

Brussels I Recast Regulation and Lugano Convention

As per the answers in Question 11, in the context of enforcement under either the Brussels I Recast Regulation or the Lugano Convention, the Maltese Courts can deny the recognition and enforcement of a judgement which was given in default if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence. However, this ground of refusal shall not apply where the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so.

Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters (2019)

As per the answers provided in Question 11, in the context of enforcement under either the Hague Judgements Convention, the Maltese Courts can deny enforcement of a foreign judgement where the document which instituted the proceedings or an equivalent document, including a statement of the essential elements of the claim –

1. was not notified to the defendant in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable them to arrange for their defence, unless the defendant entered an appearance and presented their case without contesting notification in the court of origin, provided that the law of the State of origin permitted notification to be contested; or
2. was notified to the defendant in the requested State in a manner that is incompatible with fundamental principles of the requested State concerning service of documents.

 British Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act

In line with the answers provided in Question 11, where the judgement is enforced under the provisions of the British Judgements (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, the Maltese Courts will not enforce a judgement where the judgment debtor was not duly served with the process of the original court, and did not appear, notwithstanding that he was ordinarily resident or was carrying on business within the jurisdiction of that court or agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of that court.

Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure

In line with the answers provided in Question 11, where the judgement is enforced under the provisions of the COCP, the Maltese Courts will not enforce a judgment by default, if the parties were not contumacious according to foreign law. Furthermore, the Maltese Courts will also not enforce a judgement where the sworn application was not served on the party cast, provided that, notwithstanding such omission, such party shall not have entered an appearance at the trial.

With the exception of issues relating to public policy (ordre public) generally, which involves an assessment of the judgment and its effects on Maltese ordre public, the Maltese Courts have no discretion over whether or not to recognise a foreign judgment, if all the applicable requirements have been satisfied. The recognition and enforcement of a judgment may only be refused where the grounds for such refusal subsist.

Yes. By way of example, the following types of judgements cannot be enforced in Malta, given that they would be in breach of Maltese public policy (substantive or procedural):

• Cases where interest rates exceed the legally permitted rates;
• Matters that constitute a criminal offence in Malta or that constitute a breach of fundamental human rights;
• Cases where the foreign procedure is fundamentally contrary to principles of natural justice as applied in Malta;
• Cases where punitive damages are awarded.

Brussels I Recast Regulation and Lugano Convention: Foreign judgements which are subject to an appeal or which are pending an appeal may still be enforced in Malta if they are (provisionally) enforceable in the country of origin.

Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters (2019): Recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgement may be postponed or refused if the judgment is the subject of review in the State of origin or if the time limit for seeking ordinary review has not expired.

British Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act: No judgement shall be registered in Malta if the judgement debtor satisfies the registering court either that an appeal is pending, or that he is entitled, and intends to appeal against the judgment.

Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure: Foreign judgements will only be enforced if the judgement final and binding and constitutes a res judicata.

Yes, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements in Malta can generally be appealed (depending on the instrument applicable).

Interest can be claimed to the extent that it is awarded in the foreign judgment. However, in cases of a civil nature, the interest will typically be capped at the rate of 8%, whereas in cases of a commercial nature, the interest will be capped at the established rate of commercial interest which is reviewed by-annually and currently amounts to 12.5%.

Yes, when seeking the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgement, the value of any money judgements must be converted into the local currency, which is the Euro.

The Court costs and tariffs due to lawyers and legal procurators as prescribed in the taxed bill of costs may be recovered. It is not possible to recover additional costs such as the parties’ costs of instructing lawyers and other professionals.

Third-party litigation funding is unregulated and is – in principle – permitted, saving for stipulations quotae litis which are void.

With Brexit now in effect, we anticipate that Maltese courts will experience a rise in applications under the British Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Chapter 52 of the Laws of Malta). This Act had fallen out of use with the implementation of the Brussels Regulations during the United Kingdom’s EU membership. Nonetheless, Malta retains a mechanism that enables the reciprocal enforcement of British judgments through a streamlined and efficient process.

Yes, Malta, being an EU Member State has ratified the Hague Choice of Courts Convention of 30 June 2005.

Yes, Malta, being an EU Member State, has ratified the Hague Judgements Convention of 2019.