Judgments rendered in countries outside the European Union – such as the United States, Switzerland, the United Kingdom (following Brexit), Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong or other non-EU jurisdictions – regularly raise the question for creditors of whether, and through what procedure, such judgments may be recognized and enforced in Germany.

The legal framework is complex. Within the European Union, a series of regulations – most notably the Brussels I bis Regulation – substantially facilitates the cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments. By contrast, judgments from non-EU states are governed largely by domestic German law as well as by bilateral or multilateral treaties under public international law. The result is a markedly more burdensome procedure.

This article provides a comprehensive overview of the requirements, the procedure, and the practical handling of the recognition and enforcement of non-EU judgments in Germany. It addresses the statutory framework, the role of international treaties, the typical procedural steps, and the defenses available to the debtor. It also offers practical guidance for maximizing the prospects of success.

I. Legal Framework and Scope of Application

1. Domestic Provisions of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO)

The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Germany is governed primarily by Sections 722 and 723 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, "ZPO"), to the extent that the judgment does not originate from an EU Member State or from a state party to a special convention. Pursuant to Section 722 ZPO, a foreign judgment may be declared enforceable in Germany only on the basis of an enforcement judgment (Vollstreckungsurteil). Jurisdiction to issue such an enforcement judgment lies with the German court that would have had first-instance jurisdiction over the underlying subject matter. While EU judgments benefit from a substantially streamlined procedure under European regulations, non-EU judgments must proceed through the formal exequatur procedure under German law.

2. International Treaties and Bilateral Agreements

In addition to domestic law, the existence of international treaties is of considerable importance. Germany has concluded bilateral agreements on the mutual recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions with a number of countries. Switzerland holds a special position by virtue of the Lugano Convention, which has gained additional significance with respect to UK judgments following the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union. Further, older treaties exist with certain other countries, including several in Eastern Europe. Such conventions may provide for simplified procedures or particular recognition requirements.

Absent a bilateral or multilateral treaty, recognition and enforcement is governed exclusively by domestic German law. The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments may take on broader significance in the future, provided that additional states accede to it. At present, its applicability must be assessed on a country-by-country basis depending on the status of accession.

3. Distinction from EU Judgments and Arbitral Awards

Unlike EU judgments, which benefit from a simplified recognition procedure – particularly under the Brussels I bis Regulation – the recognition and enforcement of non-EU judgments is considerably more burdensome. It must also be distinguished from the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The latter is governed not by Sections 722 and 723 ZPO but by Sections 1060 et seq. ZPO, which entail different requirements and a distinct procedural framework.

II. Requirements for the Enforcement of Non-EU Judgments

1. Formal Validity of the Foreign Judgment

A central prerequisite is that the foreign judgment must be final or at least enforceable. A judgment that remains subject to appeal and is not yet final generally cannot be declared enforceable. The creditor bears the burden of demonstrating that the judgment is in fact enforceable and has taken legal effect in the state of origin.

2. International Jurisdiction and the Right to Be Heard

The German court examines whether the foreign court had international jurisdiction. The decisive question is whether the jurisdiction of the originating court would be deemed appropriate under the principles of German international civil procedure law (the so-called mirror principle, Spiegelbildprinzip). The court further examines whether the debtor was afforded the right to be heard in the state of origin and was given a meaningful opportunity to participate in the proceedings.

3. Proper Service of Process

A further essential requirement is the proper commencement of the foreign proceedings against the debtor. This includes proper service of the complaint and summons. Where service does not meet the applicable standards – for example, because it was effected without translation or fails to comply with the minimum requirements of the Hague Service Convention – this may bar recognition and enforcement.

4. No Violation of German Public Policy (Ordre Public)

The recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment must not violate the fundamental principles of the German legal order. The ordre public reservation applies where the foreign judgment contravenes fundamental principles of German law or of the European Convention on Human Rights. Serious violations of basic principles of justice or of essential procedural rights will result in the denial of enforcement.

5. No Incompatibility with Domestic or Previously Recognized Foreign Judgments

A foreign judgment will further not be recognized if it is incompatible with a judgment rendered or recognized in Germany in the same matter, or if a judgment from a third country concerning the same legal relationship has already been recognized in Germany.

III. The Exequatur Procedure under Sections 722 and 723 ZPO

1. Application by the Creditor

The procedure is initiated by an application filed by the creditor with the German court having subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction. The applicant must submit the enforcement title – that is, the foreign judgment – and establish that the formal requirements are met. This includes a certified copy of the judgment, evidence of its finality or enforceability in the state of origin, and a certified German translation of the relevant documents.

2. Review by the German Court

The competent court then reviews whether the requirements outlined above are satisfied, with particular attention to the international jurisdiction of the originating court, the proper participation of the debtor in the foreign proceedings, compatibility with German public policy, and compliance with formal requirements.

3. Oral Hearing and Participation of the Debtor

The debtor is entitled to respond to the application for enforcement and may raise objections – for instance, that the foreign judgment violates German public policy or that service of process was improper. An oral hearing typically takes place at which both parties may present their arguments. However, no review on the merits of the foreign decision (révision au fond) is conducted, absent public policy concerns or manifest procedural defects.

4. Decision on Enforcement

If the foreign judgment satisfies all requirements, the German court issues an enforcement judgment by which the foreign judgment is declared enforceable in Germany. The enforcement judgment itself constitutes an independent enforceable title and serves as the basis for compulsory enforcement measures within Germany. If enforcement is denied, the creditor may appeal.

IV. Legal Effects of the Declaration of Enforceability

Once declared enforceable, the foreign judgment is treated on par with a domestic enforcement title. The creditor may pursue all compulsory enforcement measures available under German law, including garnishment of bank accounts, wage garnishment, attachment of movable and immovable property, and the forced sale of real estate. The enforcement judgment has the same effect as a final German judgment. However, in substantive terms, the judgment's effect extends only as far as its res judicata effect in the state of origin; any further legal consequences arise only to the extent expressly provided for under German law. A debtor who fails to comply with the obligations established by the judgment is subject to the same coercive measures as in the case of a purely domestic enforcement title.

V. Defenses Available to the Debtor

1. Violation of Public Policy (Ordre Public)

The debtor may argue that the foreign judgment violates fundamental principles of the German legal order. German courts apply this defense narrowly. Typical examples include serious violations of the right to be heard, arbitrary decisions, or manifest violations of basic procedural standards.

2. Defective Service or Lack of Participation in the Proceedings

A common objection relates to inadequate notice to the debtor in the foreign proceedings or to the commencement of proceedings in a manner that did not permit a proper defense. The debtor may argue, in particular, that he was unaware of the proceedings or that service did not conform to international standards – such as those of the Hague Service Convention – for example, because no translation was provided.

3. Jurisdiction Clauses or Arbitration Agreements

Where a contractual agreement provides that disputes shall be resolved exclusively before a specific state court or arbitral tribunal, the debtor may object that the foreign court wrongly assumed jurisdiction.

4. Satisfaction or Limitation of the Underlying Claim

If the debtor has already satisfied the claim adjudicated by the foreign judgment, or if the claim is time-barred under foreign or German law, the debtor may assert such a substantive defense, provided the German enforcement court entertains it. Because the recognition procedure generally does not allow for a review of the merits, the debtor may need to raise such objections by way of separate proceedings – in particular, by means of an enforcement counterclaim (Vollstreckungsgegenklage) under Section 767 ZPO.

VI. Practical Guidance for Creditors Enforcing Non-EU Judgments

1. Thorough Preparation

Before initiating the exequatur procedure, the creditor should ensure that all necessary documents are complete and in order. This includes a certified copy of the judgment, evidence of its finality or enforceability, and a certified translation. Complete and accurate documentation significantly reduces the risk of delay.

2. Compliance with International Jurisdiction and Service Requirements

Already in the original proceedings, care should be taken to ensure that service on the debtor meets German standards. While this can be difficult to manage in foreign proceedings, it is of considerable importance with a view to subsequent enforcement in Germany. Creditors should also assess at an early stage whether any bilateral treaty or international convention – such as the Lugano Convention – applies and may facilitate the procedure.

3. Avoiding Public Policy Conflicts

Creditors should consider in advance whether the legal principles applied in the state of origin could be considered fundamentally inconsistent with the German legal order. Denial on public policy grounds remains the exception. However, unusual procedural practices or excessive damages awards – such as punitive damages – may pose particular concerns.

4. Engagement of Specialized Counsel

Given the complexity of the procedure, it is advisable to retain an attorney experienced in international enforcement matters. Specialists can assist in formulating the procedural strategy, obtaining the necessary documentation, and anticipating the debtor's likely lines of defense. The involvement of sworn translators and, where necessary, interpreters is generally indispensable.

5. Time and Cost Considerations

The exequatur procedure for non-EU judgments is typically more time-consuming and more expensive than the enforcement of judgments from within the EU. In addition to court costs and attorneys' fees, translation costs can be substantial. A careful cost-benefit analysis is therefore advisable before initiating proceedings. Where the debtor holds attachable assets in Germany, the effort generally proves worthwhile.

VII. Illustrative Cases

1. Judgment from the United States

A creditor has obtained a final judgment in New York against a debtor domiciled in Germany. As there is no comprehensive treaty between Germany and the United States on the recognition and enforcement of judgments, the creditor must apply for a declaration of enforceability under Sections 722 and 723 ZPO. The German court will review, in particular, the international jurisdiction of the U.S. court, the propriety of service, and compatibility with German public policy. If these requirements are met, the judgment is declared enforceable, and the creditor may pursue enforcement measures such as garnishment of bank accounts or wages.

2. Judgment from Switzerland

For decisions from Switzerland, the Lugano Convention applies, which substantially facilitates the recognition and enforcement of judgments between EU Member States and EFTA states. The procedure is significantly simpler than for states not party to such an instrument. Swiss judgments are generally recognized in Germany, absent a public policy violation or other grounds for refusal.

3. Judgment from a State with No Applicable Treaty

Where the judgment originates from a country with which Germany has no relevant treaty arrangement, the full rigor of the German exequatur procedure applies. If international jurisdiction or finality cannot be established beyond doubt, or if defects in service exist, the application for a declaration of enforceability may fail.

VIII. Alternatives and Complementary Measures

1. Out-of-Court Settlement and Mediation

It may be economically advisable to pursue an installment payment arrangement or settlement with the debtor before initiating a costly exequatur procedure. An out-of-court resolution saves time and expense and may render court proceedings unnecessary.

2. Attachment and Preliminary Injunctions

Even before the foreign judgment has been declared enforceable, it may be advisable to secure the debtor's assets in Germany by way of attachment (Arrest) or a preliminary injunction (einstweilige Verfügung). This prevents the debtor from dissipating assets during the pendency of the recognition proceedings.

3. Consideration of Alternative Enforcement Venues

Depending on where the debtor holds assets, enforcement in another country – for example, one with a more streamlined enforcement procedure or a treaty regime more favorable to the creditor – may be more attractive. A strategic choice of venue can reduce both the duration and the cost of enforcement.

IX. Outlook and Conclusion

The enforcement of non-EU judgments in Germany remains a challenging area of law, as there is still no globally uniform framework for the cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments. The European Union has achieved a high degree of harmonization through its regulations, but that framework cannot readily be extended to non-EU states. International conventions, in particular the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, may gain greater significance over the longer term as additional states accede.

For creditors, early engagement with the legal framework governing the enforcement of non-EU judgments is essential. Careful preparation, sound legal advice, and strict compliance with all formal requirements are the principal drivers of success. While the procedure is complex and can be costly, in today's globally connected economy there is often no practical alternative for creditors confronted with non-paying debtors holding assets in Germany.

In sum, this is a sensitive and demanding area of law. Those who understand its fundamentals, plan ahead, and obtain qualified legal counsel can overcome the existing hurdles and successfully enforce a judgment obtained abroad in Germany.