Prim'Awla tal-Qorti Civili; 2019-07-16; Vincenzo di Nunzio Vs Interactive Services Limited; 555/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:MT:CIVP:2019:117905
Date: 2019-07-16
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Malta

82019MT0716(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards enforcement of an executive garnishee order assessed by the Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Civili (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’).
In April 2018, the Tribunale di Velletri (hereinafter ‘the Italian Court’) issued a judgment in favour of a natural person domiciled in Italy (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) ordering a company domiciled in Malta (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) to pay EUR 125_518.51. The Italian court accompanied its judgment by a certificate in accordance with Article 53 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). In April 2019, the plaintiff applied for the enforcement of Italian judgment in Malta. The request was granted, and the Court of First Instance issued an executive garnishee order in favour of the plaintiff.
Subsequently, the defendant objected against the executive garnishee order alleging errors in the Italian proceedings, e. g. a breach of Italian procedural law, lack of jurisdiction of Italian courts to decide the dispute, a pending appeal in Italy, or lack of notification about the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), which was moreover issued without necessary substantive requirements.
The Court of First Instance recalled the primacy of European law over national law and cited Recitals 26, 27, 30, and 32 and Articles 43 and 45 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The principle of mutual trust in the administration of justice in the Union induces the fact that the foreign judgment must not be reviewed as to its substance and the objections suggesting erroneous Italian proceedings or lack of jurisdiction of Italian courts cannot be accepted as a ground for a refusal of recognition and enforcement. The recognition of a judgment should be refused only if one or more of the grounds for refusal provided in the Brussels I Regulation (recast) are present.
However, the Court of First Instance recalled the principle stipulated by Recital 32 of the said Regulation according to which ‘in order to inform the person against whom enforcement is sought of the enforcement of a judgment given in another Member State, the certificate established under this Regulation, if necessary, accompanied by the judgment, should be served on that person in a reasonable time before the first enforcement measure’. After examining the circumstances and documents of the case, the Court of First Instance held that the defendant indeed was not served by the certificate issued by the Italian court pursuant to Article 53 of the Brussels I Regulation. Therefore, it could be concluded that the defendant was deprived of its rights to defence and of its rights to object against the enforcement of the Italian judgment in the territory of Malta, which is significantly contrary to the principles of European law set by the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
Since the Court of First Instance accepted one of the grounds of the defendant’s objection, the objection against the executive garnishee order was granted and the executive garnishee order (issued previously by the same court) was annulled.
(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.