Enforcing a Germany Court Judgment in Malta

To enforce a Germany court judgment in Malta, creditors rely primarily on EU Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast), which allows judgments from one EU member state to be enforced directly in another without a separate declaration of enforceability. Because both Germany and Malta are EU member states, the process is more streamlined than enforcement against a non-EU judgment, but it still requires careful procedural steps, correct documentation, and an understanding of Maltese procedural law. This guide covers the legal framework, the step-by-step enforcement process, costs, available defences, and practical strategy for creditors seeking to recover assets in Malta.

The cornerstone of cross-border judgment enforcement between Germany and Malta is Brussels I Recast, which entered into force across the EU and fundamentally changed how civil and commercial judgments circulate between member states. Under this regulation, a judgment given by a German court in a civil or commercial matter is, in principle, enforceable in Malta without any intermediate procedure to have it declared enforceable. This is a significant departure from the older Brussels I Regulation (Council Regulation 44/2001), which required an exequatur - a formal court order granting enforceability - before execution could begin.

Under Brussels I Recast, the creditor presents the judgment together with a certificate issued by the German court under Article 53 of the regulation. This certificate, known as the Annex I certificate, confirms the nature of the judgment, the parties, the amount awarded, and whether the judgment is enforceable in the state of origin. The Maltese enforcement authority then treats the judgment as if it were a Maltese judgment for the purposes of execution, subject only to the limited grounds for refusal set out in Article 45 of the regulation.

It is important to note that Brussels I Recast applies to civil and commercial matters. It does not cover revenue, customs or administrative matters, matrimonial property, insolvency, or arbitration awards. A creditor holding a German judgment in one of those excluded categories must rely on alternative routes, including the common law rules of private international law as applied in Malta, or specific bilateral or multilateral instruments where applicable.

Malta's domestic procedural framework for execution is governed primarily by the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta). This code sets out the mechanics of enforcement - attachment of movable and immovable property, garnishee orders over bank accounts and receivables, and the sale of seized assets. Maltese enforcement proceedings are conducted before the Civil Court (First Hall) or, for smaller claims, the Court of Magistrates, depending on the amount in dispute.

Before any enforcement step can be taken in Malta, the creditor must obtain the Article 53 certificate from the German court that issued the judgment. This certificate is a standardised EU form and is issued by the originating court, not by any Maltese authority. The application is made to the German court using the form set out in Annex I of Brussels I Recast, and the court completes it based on the judgment on file.

In practice, German courts issue the Article 53 certificate relatively quickly, often within a few days to two weeks of the application, provided the judgment is final and enforceable (vollstreckbar) under German law. A judgment that is still subject to appeal may not yet be enforceable, and the certificate will reflect that status. Creditors should therefore confirm the enforceability status of the judgment in Germany before initiating Maltese proceedings.

The certificate must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment. Both documents will need to be translated into Maltese or English for use in Malta. Malta has two official languages - Maltese and English - and Maltese courts routinely accept documents in English, which significantly reduces translation costs compared with enforcement in many other EU jurisdictions. The translation requirement applies to the judgment itself; the Article 53 certificate is a standardised form that Maltese courts are familiar with in its original format, though a translation of the substantive sections is advisable in practice.

A common mistake at this stage is failing to obtain a certified copy of the judgment rather than a simple photocopy. The Maltese enforcement authority will require a document that can be authenticated, and a plain copy without the court's seal or certification will cause delays. Creditors should instruct their German counsel to obtain a beglaubigte Abschrift - a certified copy - at the same time as the Article 53 certificate.

Once the creditor holds the Article 53 certificate and a certified copy of the German judgment, enforcement in Malta proceeds through the Civil Court (First Hall) in Valletta. The creditor, through Maltese legal counsel, files a judicial act - typically a sworn application - presenting the judgment, the certificate, and any translation, and requesting the court to authorise specific enforcement measures against the debtor's assets in Malta.

Under Brussels I Recast, the creditor does not need to obtain a separate declaration of enforceability before proceeding to enforcement. However, the Maltese court must be satisfied that the documents are in order and that the judgment falls within the scope of the regulation. In practice, the court registry reviews the filing and, if the documentation is complete, the enforcement warrant is issued. This initial stage typically takes between two and six weeks, depending on the court's workload and the completeness of the filing.

The main enforcement tools available under Maltese law include:

• A warrant of seizure (sekwestru) over movable property belonging to the debtor.
• A garnishee order (ordni ta' garnixment) freezing and attaching funds held by third parties, most commonly banks.
• A warrant of executive description (deskrizzjoni) for immovable property.
• A precautionary warrant (mandat kawtelatorju) to preserve assets pending final enforcement.

Garnishee orders are particularly effective in Malta because the Maltese banking sector is concentrated and accounts can be identified and frozen relatively quickly. The order is served on the bank or third party holding the funds, who must then declare whether they hold assets belonging to the debtor. If they do, those assets are frozen pending the outcome of the enforcement proceedings.

Creditors should instruct Maltese counsel to conduct a preliminary asset search before filing. Malta's public registers - including the Malta Business Registry for company information and the Land Registry for immovable property - are accessible and can reveal whether the debtor holds registered assets in Malta. This step avoids the cost of enforcement proceedings where the debtor has no recoverable assets in the jurisdiction.

If you need to structure the enforcement strategy correctly from the outset, contact info@vlolawfirm.com. We can assist with document preparation, coordination with Maltese counsel, and asset identification.

Although Brussels I Recast significantly limits the grounds on which a Maltese court can refuse to enforce a German judgment, those grounds are not trivial and creditors must be prepared to address them. Article 45 of the regulation sets out an exhaustive list of refusal grounds, which a debtor can invoke by applying to the Maltese court for a declaration of refusal of enforcement.

The main grounds for refusal are:

• Manifest incompatibility with Maltese public policy (ordre public), including fundamental procedural fairness.
• The judgment was given in default of appearance and the defendant was not served in sufficient time to arrange a defence.
• Irreconcilability with an earlier judgment given in Malta or in a third state involving the same parties and the same cause of action.
• Violation of the exclusive jurisdiction rules in Articles 24 or 25 of Brussels I Recast.

In practice, the public policy ground is interpreted narrowly by Maltese courts, consistent with EU case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union. A debtor cannot use public policy simply to re-litigate the merits of the German judgment. The Maltese court will not review the substance of the German court's decision; it will only examine whether enforcement would violate a fundamental principle of Maltese law.

The default judgment ground is more commonly raised. If the German judgment was obtained in absentia - for example, because the debtor did not respond to proceedings - the debtor may argue in Malta that they were not properly served. Creditors should retain evidence of service from the German proceedings, including any postal or formal service records, to counter this argument.

A non-obvious requirement is that the debtor must apply for refusal of enforcement within a specific time limit after being served with notice of the enforcement measures. Under Brussels I Recast, this application must be made promptly, and failure to act quickly can result in the debtor losing the right to challenge enforcement. Creditors benefit from this time pressure and should serve notice of enforcement measures in a way that starts the clock running.

Consider two practical scenarios. In the first, a German supplier has obtained a judgment against a Maltese trading company for unpaid invoices. The Maltese company has a bank account in Malta and owns a warehouse. The creditor obtains the Article 53 certificate, files in Malta, and obtains a garnishee order over the bank account within four to eight weeks. The debtor raises no valid refusal ground, and the funds are transferred to the creditor after the statutory waiting period. In the second scenario, a German company has a judgment against a Maltese individual who claims the German court never properly served them. The individual applies for refusal of enforcement on the default judgment ground. The creditor produces the German service records, the Maltese court finds service was adequate, and enforcement proceeds - but the dispute adds three to six months to the timeline.

The overall cost of enforcing a German judgment in Malta depends on the complexity of the case, the value of the judgment, and whether the debtor contests enforcement. Costs fall into three broad categories: professional fees, court fees, and ancillary costs.

Professional fees - primarily Maltese legal counsel - are the largest component. Maltese advocates charge on a time or fixed-fee basis, and enforcement matters of moderate complexity typically attract fees starting from the low thousands of EUR. More contested matters, particularly where the debtor applies for refusal of enforcement, will cost more. German counsel may also be needed to obtain the Article 53 certificate and certified judgment copy, adding a further professional fee element.

Court fees in Malta are set by statute and vary with the value of the claim. They are generally modest relative to the judgment amount and represent a small fraction of the total cost. Translation costs are lower than in many EU jurisdictions because English is an official language in Malta, but certified translations of the German judgment are still advisable and carry a cost.

The realistic timeline from initiating the Maltese enforcement process to receiving funds - assuming no serious contest - is approximately two to four months. This includes the time to obtain the Article 53 certificate in Germany (one to two weeks), prepare and file the Maltese application (one to two weeks), obtain the enforcement warrant (two to six weeks), serve the garnishee order or seizure warrant, and complete the transfer of funds. Contested proceedings, particularly where the debtor applies for refusal of enforcement or challenges the asset seizure, can extend the timeline to six to twelve months or longer.

A practical tip for creditors is to consider applying for a precautionary warrant at the same time as or even before the main enforcement filing. Under Maltese procedural law, a precautionary warrant can freeze assets before the debtor is notified of the enforcement proceedings, preventing dissipation. This is particularly valuable where there is reason to believe the debtor may transfer or conceal assets once they learn of the creditor's intentions.

Many creditors underestimate the importance of local asset intelligence. A judgment is only as valuable as the assets available to satisfy it. Before committing to enforcement costs in Malta, creditors should verify through public registers and, where appropriate, through legal enquiries, that the debtor holds recoverable assets in Malta. The Malta Business Registry, the Land Registry, and the Malta Financial Services Authority's public registers are useful starting points.

Another common mistake is assuming that the Brussels I Recast process is entirely automatic and requires no Maltese court involvement. In practice, the creditor must still engage the Maltese court system, serve documents on the debtor, and comply with Maltese procedural rules. Errors in service or in the form of the judicial act can cause delays and additional costs.

What happens if the German judgment is not yet final - can it still be enforced in Malta?

Brussels I Recast requires the judgment to be enforceable in the state of origin. If the German judgment is provisional or subject to an appeal that suspends enforceability under German law, the Article 53 certificate will reflect this and the judgment cannot yet be enforced in Malta. However, if the judgment is provisionally enforceable under German law - which is common for first-instance judgments in Germany - it can be enforced in Malta even if an appeal is pending. The debtor may apply to the Maltese court to suspend enforcement pending the outcome of the German appeal, but suspension is not automatic and the debtor must make a specific application. Creditors should obtain confirmation from German counsel on the enforceability status before proceeding.

How long does the full enforcement process typically take, and what does it cost?

In an uncontested case where the debtor holds identifiable assets in Malta, the process from filing to recovery typically takes two to four months. Professional fees for Maltese counsel on a straightforward matter usually start from the low thousands of EUR, with court fees adding a modest further amount. If the debtor contests enforcement by applying for refusal under Article 45 of Brussels I Recast, the timeline can extend to six to twelve months or more, and professional fees increase accordingly. Translation costs are relatively low because English is an official language in Malta. Creditors should budget for both the optimistic and contested scenarios when assessing whether enforcement is commercially worthwhile relative to the judgment amount.

Are there alternatives to Brussels I Recast for enforcing a German judgment in Malta?

For civil and commercial judgments, Brussels I Recast is the primary and most efficient route. However, for judgment types excluded from the regulation - such as those arising from insolvency, family law, or arbitration - alternative routes exist. A German arbitral award can be enforced in Malta under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, to which Malta is a party. For judgments outside both Brussels I Recast and the New York Convention, a creditor may bring a fresh action in Malta based on the German judgment as a debt of record, relying on Maltese private international law rules. This route is slower and more expensive, but it remains available where the regulation does not apply.

Enforcing a German court judgment in Malta is a structured process anchored in EU law, with Brussels I Recast providing a direct and relatively efficient route for civil and commercial judgments. The key steps - obtaining the Article 53 certificate, filing in the Maltese Civil Court, and deploying the appropriate enforcement warrant - are well-defined, but success depends on correct documentation, local asset intelligence, and readiness to address debtor challenges.

VLO Law Firm advises international clients on judgment enforcement in Germany and cross-border recovery matters. We can assist with obtaining enforcement documentation, coordinating with Maltese counsel, conducting asset searches, and managing contested enforcement proceedings. To request a consultation, contact: info@vlolawfirm.com