How to recover a debt through a third-party debt order in Italy
This year, our law firm successfully recovered, through an Italian court, an old commercial debt recognized by a French court against a debtor in Saudi Arabia. After 13 years, our client, a French agent, obtained its payment in Italy, including all interests and expenses, for an overall amount exceeding €1,3 million. Before, the French creditor had tried unsuccessfully to enforce his judgment against the debtor in France, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia.
This case starts in 2013 when a French court condemned a Saudi company to pay a French sport agent his commissions for the transfer of a football player. The debtor was notified of the French ruling, but failed to pay the outstanding debt.
In 2024, the French creditor saw a possibility to recover its debt in Italy, because the debtor had to be paid by an Italian football club. So, acting in urgency, the French creditor seized in Italy the price to be paid by the Italian club.
How can a French creditor recover its debt from a non-EU debtor through an Italian third party, and how come that an Italian court has jurisdiction in this case?
First of all, the French creditor had a favorable French judgment that was directly enforceable in other EU member states, including Italy, thanks to EU legislation (namely, Regulation CE n. 805/2004).
Furthermore, what happened here is a judicial enforcement in Italy, through a third-party debt order. Simply, a creditor receives payment from a debtor of his/her debtor (in Latin, debtor debitoris), following a third-party debt order issued by an Italian court.
A (the debtor) owes B (the creditor) money, and doesn’t pay. B turns to C (the third party) which owes A money, serving C a judicial third party debt order. C is ordered by the judge to pay his debt to B, in order to eliminate A’s debt owed to B.
This by itself is quite complicated, now imagine if the debtor, the creditor and the third party are situated in three different countries.
Thankfully, in Italy it is possible to obtain a third-party debt order from the court where the third party is domiciled, even if the creditor and the debtor are not located in Italy.
An old ruling in 1981 of the Grand Chamber of the Italian Supreme Court recognized that the creditor may seize sums due in Italy by a third party, even if the debtor under enforcement is not located in Italy.
This ruling states that Italian courts have jurisdiction if the receivables to be seized have originated in Italy or must be paid in Italy (Cass. Sez. UU. N° 5827/2021). This is not explicitly written in the domestic statutes but can be deducted from the territoriality principle and can be applied to the seizure of the sums due to a foreign creditor, if the debt originated in Italy or is payable in Italy.
This precedent is mentioned in its order dated October 20, 2025, by the Tribunal of Rome (judge, Mr. Cento) which adds that “ the principle of territoriality in enforcement proceedings—which, precisely, determines the scope of jurisdiction based on the location of the property subject to enforcement—is a generally accepted principle of international law and, therefore, directly applicable in domestic law pursuant to Article 10 of the Constitution…”.
In 2024, in a similar enforcement case, the Italian Supreme Court had also affirmed Italian jurisdiction, based on other two main arguments (respectively of domestic and international law, Cass. Civ. n° 22302/2024):
Art. 26 of the Italian Civil Procedure Code states that enforcement proceedings should start in front of the Italian Tribunal where the movable or immovable asset to be seized is located. It is a mandatory (non-waivable) competence, which cannot be altered even by agreement of the parties (Article 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure). So, In Italy, the court which is competent for enforcement proceedings is the one where the asset to be seized is located.
On an international point of view, art. 32(2) of the Brussel Convention of 1968 on recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters states that if the party against whom enforcement is initiated is not domiciled in the territory of the requested State, jurisdiction is determined by the place of enforcement.
It must be added that Brussels Convention of 1968’s rules are still relevant for Italian judges in order to determine jurisdiction in civil and commercial disputes involving non EU parties (art. 3, par. 2 Italian Law n° 218/1995).
In conclusion, following the territoriality principle and the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1981, the Tribunal of Rome confirmed Italian jurisdiction over the seizure of receivables in Italy pertaining to a non EU debtor. The Tribunal of Rome held that the money seized to the third party derived from an obligation arisen in Italy by virtue of a contract stipulated between the Italian party and its non EU partner. Consequently, the Italian third party was forced by the Italian court to pay the French creditor of its non EU partner.
This successful result for our client was reached in a year, overcoming all legal difficulties, step by step. At the beginning, it was a matter of strategy to obtain from the Italian Tribunal the right to commence the proceeding in urgency, so to serve the notice of enforcement to the non EU debtor, after the seizure of receivables in Italy. Afterwards, the cooperation with the Italian embassy was essential in securing the proof of service of the Italian judicial notices to the non EU country of the debtor; this proof of service was necessary under Italian law, for the validity of all the judicial process. Finally, our legal arguments were supported by the Italian judges.
In conclusion, the description of this international debt recovery case gives us the occasion to exhort EU creditors not to desist from enforcement, when the value at stake justifies it. A bit of luck and expert legal assistance may led to debt recovery, even after several years of unsuccessful attempts against debtors located in other countries.
LEX IBC, a law firm based in Italy, specialized in international contracts and debt collection, may support your company in the commercial negotiation and disputes and adopt the more appropriate strategy in your specific case.
CONTACT US FOR ANY INFORMATION OR ASSISTANCE.
Mariangela Balestra and Maria Nölting
Lex IBC – 2025, All Rights Reserved.