Enforcing an English Judgment in Germany After Brexit

Since Brexit took effect on 1 January 2021, English court judgments no longer benefit from automatic EU-wide recognition under the Brussels Ia Regulation in Germany. Enforcing an English judgment against a debtor or assets located in Germany now requires either reliance on the Hague Convention framework or a separate national exequatur procedure before a German court – a process that demands careful preparation, the right documentation, and an understanding of where procedural pitfalls tend to arise.

Why Brexit Changed Everything for Cross-Border Enforcement

Before Brexit, a creditor holding an English judgment could use the Brussels Ia Regulation (Recast) to obtain enforcement in Germany swiftly, without any substantive review of the underlying merits. That automatic mutual recognition mechanism ceased to apply to the United Kingdom from 1 January 2021. From that date, Germany treats English judgments in the same way it treats judgments from any non-EU third country: recognition is governed by domestic German private international law, primarily Sections 328 and 722–723 of the Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO), and by any applicable international convention.

This shift has direct consequences for businesses engaged in debt collection, recovery of unpaid invoices, and enforcement of commercial awards across the two jurisdictions. Understanding the current legal landscape is the essential first step before committing resources to enforcement proceedings in Germany.

The Hague Convention Framework: Two Instruments in Play

Two Hague Conventions are relevant, and confusion between them is one of the most common errors made by foreign clients.

Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005

The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements remains the most immediately useful instrument for many commercial creditors. It applies where the parties concluded a exclusive jurisdiction clause designating English courts before the dispute arose. Both the UK and the EU (for Germany) are contracting parties. Under this Convention, a German court must recognise and enforce the English judgment without re-examining the merits, subject to narrow refusal grounds, provided the choice-of-court agreement was valid and exclusive. The contract must have been concluded on or after the Convention's entry into force between the relevant states.

Critically, the 2005 Convention covers only exclusive choice-of-court clauses. Non-exclusive or asymmetric jurisdiction clauses fall outside its scope, leaving those cases to rely on German national rules.

Hague Judgments Convention 2019

The broader Hague Judgments Convention of 2 July 2019 is a more recent development that will eventually simplify enforcement significantly. Its current status is as follows:

• It entered into force for the EU (excluding Denmark) and several other states, with Ukraine and Uruguay also party.
• For the United Kingdom, the Convention enters into force on 1 July 2025.
• Albania and Montenegro will join from 1 March 2026; Andorra from 1 June 2026.
• Only judgments in proceedings instituted after the Convention's entry into force as between both the state of origin and the state where enforcement is sought qualify. A judgment from English proceedings commenced before 1 July 2025 does not benefit from the 2019 Convention as between the UK and EU member states.

This temporal limitation is significant. For enforcement actions being planned today in relation to proceedings already underway or concluded before 1 July 2025, the 2019 Convention does not yet provide a basis. Those cases continue to rely on the 2005 Hague Convention (if an exclusive clause exists) or German national exequatur rules.

The German National Exequatur Procedure (ZPO Sections 722–723)

Where neither Hague Convention applies, the creditor must bring a fresh action before the competent German court to obtain a declaration of enforceability (Vollstreckungsurteil). This is not a simple administrative registration; it is a stand-alone civil proceeding. The German court will examine whether the conditions set out in Section 328 ZPO are satisfied.

Conditions for Recognition Under Section 328 ZPO

Recognition may be refused if any of the following conditions is present:

• The English court lacked international jurisdiction according to German conflict-of-laws rules.
• The defendant was not properly served and could not defend the proceedings in time.
• The judgment conflicts with an earlier German or recognised foreign judgment.
• Recognition would be incompatible with German ordre public (public policy).
• There is no reciprocity – though in practice German courts have generally accepted that England satisfies the reciprocity requirement, and this ground has limited practical significance in commercial matters.

Importantly, the German court does not re-examine the merits of the underlying dispute. The exequatur action is procedural in nature, but the defendant retains the right to raise any of the above defences, which can extend the timeline considerably if contested.

Step-by-Step: Enforcing Your English Judgment in Germany

Step 1 – Assess the Applicable Convention

Establish whether your contract contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause and whether it falls within the scope of the 2005 Hague Convention. If your proceedings were instituted on or after 1 July 2025, also assess whether the 2019 Convention applies. Where neither instrument assists, the national ZPO route is necessary.

Step 2 – Gather and Authenticate Documents

The following documents are typically required for German enforcement proceedings, whether under a Convention or the ZPO:

• A certified copy of the English judgment, bearing the court seal.
• A certificate of enforceability or a statement from the English court confirming the judgment is final and enforceable.
• A certified German translation of all documents – carried out by a sworn translator recognised in Germany.
• Proof of service of the original proceedings on the defendant (particularly important where a default judgment was obtained).
• Copies of the underlying contract and exclusive jurisdiction clause, where the 2005 Convention is invoked.

Deficiencies in documentation – missing translations, uncertified copies, or inadequate proof of service – are among the most frequent causes of delay. Preparing this bundle correctly before filing avoids costly adjournments.

Step 3 – Identify the Correct German Court

Jurisdiction for the exequatur action before a German court is generally determined by the domicile of the debtor or the location of assets to be enforced against. For corporate debtors, the registered office (as recorded in the Handelsregister, Germany's commercial register) is the starting point for identifying the competent court. In cases involving a GmbH (the most common German corporate form), the Handelsregister entry will also confirm current directors and registered capital, which can inform asset-tracing strategy.

Step 4 – File the Exequatur Action or Convention Application

Your German lawyer will file the application or action with the competent court. Under the ZPO route, a statement of claim (Klageschrift) is required. The court will serve the proceedings on the debtor and set a timetable for any defence. Representation by a German-qualified lawyer admitted to the relevant court is mandatory.

Step 5 – Obtain the Enforcement Order and Execute

Once the court issues a Vollstreckungsurteil or a declaration of enforceability, the judgment becomes enforceable in Germany in the same way as a domestic German judgment. Enforcement tools then available include attachment of bank accounts, enforcement against real property, attachment of claims against third parties, and – in urgent cases – asset freezing orders (Arrest) to prevent dissipation of assets while proceedings are ongoing.

German enforcement also permits recovery of late payment interest as awarded by the English court, provided the German court accepts the judgment in full. The German Gerichtsvollzieher (enforcement officer) carries out the physical steps of execution.

If you are managing a cross-border debt recovery matter involving German-incorporated entities, our team can advise on how to structure enforcement most efficiently. Contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page to discuss your situation.

Timelines and Cost Drivers

There is no single fixed timeline for exequatur proceedings in Germany. Uncontested cases where documentation is complete and the debtor does not raise substantive defences can resolve within a few months. Contested proceedings – particularly where the defendant challenges German jurisdiction or raises ordre public arguments – may extend over a year or more, especially if appeals are pursued through to the Bundesgerichtshof (the Federal Court of Justice, Germany's supreme civil court).

Cost drivers to factor into your assessment include:

• Court fees, which in Germany are calculated by reference to the value in dispute (Streitwert).
• Certified translation costs, which can be substantial for lengthy judgments and supporting materials.
• German lawyer fees, governed by the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz (RVG) statutory scale or a separately agreed fee arrangement.
• English lawyer fees for preparing the documentation bundle and liaising with the German team.
• Potential enforcement costs at the execution stage (bailiff fees, court fees for attachment orders).

A realistic cost-benefit analysis is essential before commencing proceedings, particularly for lower-value claims where enforcement costs may approach or exceed the sum recoverable. For companies managing a portfolio of German receivables, it may be more efficient to combine the exequatur process with broader debt recovery in Germany strategy rather than treating each judgment in isolation.

Common Errors by Foreign Clients

Based on the types of issues that arise in cross-border enforcement matters, the following errors are worth highlighting specifically for businesses pursuing English judgments in Germany:

• Assuming the 2005 Hague Convention applies without checking the clause. A non-exclusive or asymmetric jurisdiction clause does not qualify. The precise wording of the contract must be reviewed against the Convention's requirements before relying on it.
• Conflating the 2019 Hague Convention with the 2005 Convention. The 2019 Convention only assists where UK proceedings were instituted on or after 1 July 2025. Using it as a basis for enforcing older judgments will fail.
• Submitting uncertified or insufficiently authenticated documents. German courts apply strict requirements. A photocopy of a judgment, or a translation by a non-sworn translator, will not be accepted.
• Delay in acting. German limitation rules apply to the enforcement action itself. Waiting too long after obtaining the English judgment can create additional procedural complications.
• Failing to investigate the debtor's assets before filing. If the German debtor is insolvent or has dissipated assets, enforcement may be futile. Preliminary asset investigation – including a Handelsregister search and financial due diligence – is advisable before committing to the exequatur procedure. If insolvency is a concern, an understanding of German bankruptcy and restructuring proceedings may affect strategy.
• Underestimating the Mahnverfahren alternative. Where the underlying debt is undisputed and not yet reduced to an English judgment, the German Mahnverfahren (court-based payment order procedure) can sometimes offer a faster, lower-cost path than enforcing an existing foreign judgment – though this depends on the specific facts.

Practical Considerations for Future Contracts

Businesses entering into new commercial contracts with German counterparties should take note of the evolving convention framework. From 1 July 2025, including a jurisdiction clause that falls within the scope of either the 2005 or 2019 Hague Convention will provide a significantly clearer enforcement path. Exclusive jurisdiction clauses designating English courts, properly drafted, can now be structured with the 2019 Convention's requirements in mind for proceedings to be instituted after that date.

Contract drafting that anticipates enforcement needs – including appropriate choice of law, clearly exclusive jurisdiction clauses, and provisions on late payment interest – reduces both the cost and uncertainty of any future enforcement action. For a comparative perspective on how a similar post-Brexit enforcement analysis applies in another EU jurisdiction, see our guide on enforcing an English judgment in Spain after Brexit.

Decision Checklist Before Commencing Enforcement in Germany

• Is the English judgment final, with no appeal pending or possible?
• Does the underlying contract contain an exclusive jurisdiction clause qualifying under the 2005 Hague Convention?
• Were the original English proceedings instituted on or after 1 July 2025? If so, does the 2019 Hague Convention apply?
• Is your documentation bundle complete: certified copy of judgment, enforceability certificate, certified German translations, proof of service?
• Have you identified the debtor's current registered address and assets in Germany via the Handelsregister and other sources?
• Have you assessed whether the debtor may be insolvent or in financial difficulty?
• Have you instructed German-qualified legal counsel with experience in cross-border recognition proceedings?
• Have you conducted a cost-benefit analysis relative to the value of the judgment?

Enforcing a foreign judgment in Germany involves intersecting layers of convention law, domestic procedural rules, and practical enforcement mechanics. Early legal advice – ideally before the English proceedings conclude – gives the best chance of preserving enforcement options and avoiding the errors that typically cause delays. If you would like to discuss how these issues apply to your specific situation, please reach out to our team at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or use our contacts page.

Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.