Maintenance recovery in Italy in cross-border family disputes:  EU and non-EU enforcement pathways

From a litigation and asset recovery perspective, the distinction between the EU and non-EU frameworks directly affects timing, costs, and procedural risk, significantly shaping both defensive and recovery strategies.

Decisions issued in EU member states fall within the scope of Council Regulation N. 4/2009 of 18 December 2008, on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, and enforcement of decisions, and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations. Where the state of origin is bound by the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the law applicable to maintenance obligations, recognition in Italy is automatic and the exequatur is abolished. 

The creditor may proceed directly to enforcement by producing the enforceable copy of the foreign decision together with the certificate provided for under Article 20 of Regulation N. 4/2009, without any prior review by the Italian courts. This allows immediate access to enforcement measures available under Italian law, including garnishment of salaries, pensions, and professional income, attachment of bank accounts held with Italian banks, and enforcement against real estate assets. 

A typical example is a judgment issued by a French court ordering an Italian national residing in Milan to pay maintenance to a former spouse. In such a case, the creditor may directly initiate garnishment proceedings in Italy against the debtor’s employer and bank accounts, with no need for any recognition phase. The debtor’s grounds for opposition are extremely limited and do not allow a review of the merits, ensuring a swift and highly predictable recovery.

Outside the European Union, the enforcement pathway changes. Where the state of origin is a party to the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, recognition of the foreign decision in Italy takes place through a simplified judicial procedure before the competent Court of Appeal, subject to the exhaustively listed grounds for refusal provided by the Convention. In the absence of an applicable international convention, enforcement is governed by Italian Law N. 218 of 31 May 1995, which reformed the Italian system of private international law. 

Articles 64 and 67 of Law N. 218/1995 regulate the recognition of foreign judgments, requiring verification, inter alia, of the indirect jurisdiction of the foreign court, compliance with due process, the finality of the decision, and its compatibility with Italian public policy. Where recognition is not automatic, exequatur procedure before the competent Court of Appeal is required. By way of example, consider a judgment issued by an Argentine court ordering a debtor to pay maintenance for minor children, where the debtor owned real estate and bank accounts in Italy. In this scenario, the creditor must first obtain recognition of the foreign judgment before the Italian Court of Appeal before initiating any attachment or mortgage enforcement proceedings. The recognition phase thus becomes the primary arena of procedural confrontation and the moment of greatest litigation risk.

Within the EU framework, enforcement in Italy therefore offers a structurally efficient and creditor-friendly environment. In non-EU cases, the success of recovery largely depends on the quality of the foreign title, and on the strategic preparation of the recognition phase. Given the procedural specificities of Italian enforcement proceedings, early coordination with experienced local counsel is a key strategic factor in ensuring effective and timely recovery.

Key legal sources: Council Regulation N. 4/2009 art. 20, Hague Convention 23 November 2007, Italian Law N. 218/1995, artt. 64, 67.

---

Patrizia Giannini is an Italian lawyer based in Milan and Rome, with extensive experience in cross-border litigation and international legal matters, regularly assisting foreign clients and international law firms in navigating complex issues involving Italy. She serves as Global Vice Chair of the GGI Litigation & Dispute Resolution (LDR) Practice Group.