When enforcing an EU member state judgment, the Maltese court should apply the law restrictively

A judgment which was delivered in Cyprus is enforceable because the issue of public order must be interpreted restrictively. This was held in Ioaonnis Anastrassiades et vs Credinvest International Corporate Finance Limited on 6 June 2025 by Judge Audrey Demicoli who presided over the First Hall of the Civil Court.

In May 2020, the creditor filed an application for a judgment obtained by the Court of Nicosia in Cyprus to be recognised and enforced in Malta. The Maltese court on 1 November 2023 upheld the request, however, this was overturned by the Appeals Court because the procedure used was not in conformity with EU Regulation 1215/2012.

In October 2024, the Creditor, Ioaonnis Anastrassiades, filed a warrant of seizure on property that the debtor company owned and asked for it to be sold under judicial sale. However, the debtor company filed an application challenging the enforcement of the Cypriot judgment on the ground that this went contrary to public order as outlined in Articles 45 and 46 of EU Regulation 1215/2012.

The debtor company claimed that the original debt was €55,000, however, it was ballooned to €400,000 by the Nicosia Court and therefore, this increased without any legal explanation. The debtor company asked that the Cypriot judgment not be recognised and enforced in Malta.

The creditor in his reply held that the Cyprus court judgment did not inflate the amount but the original debt was in fact €400,000. The debtor company did not appeal the judgment in Cyprus and therefore accepted the outcome.

The creditor then went into some detail on how public order is interpreted in Malta. He quoted from Arkema France vs Klesch Chemicals Limited et decided by the Court of Appeal on 7 December 2023. In that judgment the Appeals Court held that when a judgment goes against Malta’s public order then there must be a conflict with the main principles of juridical order. In the case, Joseph Zammit McKeon noe vs Laferla Insurance Agency et decided on 25 October 2013 by the First Hall of the Civil Court, the ruling explained that the Maltese courts are not to discuss the merits of the case decided by a foreign court. Neither should the Maltese courts check whether the foreign laws are compatible with Maltese laws.

The creditor further argued that the issue of public order should be interpreted restrictively and the rule should be that recognition of a foreign judgment should be preferred. The creditor insisted the Cypriot judgment does not contain any dispositions contrary to Malta’s public policy.

The Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, EU Regulation 44/2001 and EU Regulation 1215/2012 all have the same grounds to refuse a foreign judgment—they all refer to public order.

Article 45(1)(a) and Article 46 of EU Regulation 1215/2012 states that a judgement should not be recognised if it is “manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) in the Member State addressed”.

In another case J vs H Limited, the judgment was not recognised because the defendant was not allowed to defend themselves. This infringed the rule of law of the member state. This was echoed in the Real Madrid case and Diageo Brands BV vs Simiramida-04, decided on 16 July 2015.

The Court then analysed the Cypriot judgement, it held that it has a copy of the judgment and not the acts of the case. As such it must see from the judgment if it goes contrary to Malta’s public order.

It was shown in the creditor’s affidavit that he was owed €400,000 plus 3.5% interest. However, the debtor company should have asked for clarity in Cyprus and not at this stage. Apart from this, the court held that this issue is on the merits of the case which the court in Malta is precluded from entering into.

The Court then moved to turn down the request and confirmed that the Cypriot judgment is enforceable in Malta.