Law firm guidesCross-border and private international law

They are enforcing a foreign judgment against you in Spain

Last updated 2026-09-22 · Reviewed by Jaime Piñeira Pardo, registered with the ICAM bar, no. 138826

The short answer

If the judgment comes from the European Union there is no exequatur: it is enforced directly, and you have ten days from service of the order granting enforcement to apply for refusal, on the closed list of grounds in Article 45 of the Brussels I bis Regulation. If it comes from outside the Union, you object within the exequatur proceedings, within thirty days. The merits are never reviewed.

A court notification arrives and inside it there is an order granting enforcement against you for an amount you do not recognise. The title is not a Spanish judgment: it is a decision given in another country, in proceedings you learned about too late, or never learned about at all. Either the claim was sent to an address where you no longer lived, or it arrived in a language you do not understand, or it was handed to someone who was not you. Meanwhile the bank has already frozen your account and the clock is running.

The case, in five lines

What is brought: Application to refuse recognition and enforcement. If the decision comes from the European Union, on the grounds in Article 45 of the Brussels I bis Regulation and through the oral procedure governed by final provision twenty five, paragraph 4, of the Spanish Civil Procedure Act. If it comes from outside the Union, opposition within the exequatur proceedings under Law 29/2015, or a negative exequatur claim under Article 42.2 of that same law, declaring that the decision cannot be recognised in Spain.
Before which court: If the decision comes from the European Union, the civil section of the Tribunal de Instancia that is hearing the enforcement. If it comes from outside, the civil section of the Tribunal de Instancia for the domicile of the person against whom recognition is sought, always with the Public Prosecutor taking part. The order is appealed to the Audiencia Provincial and, where available, to the Supreme Court. If what is being enforced against you is a foreign arbitral award rather than a court judgment, recognition falls to the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Justice.
Deadline: Ten working days from service on you of the order granting enforcement, for the refusal claim under the European Union regime (final provision twenty five, paragraph 4, rule 2, of the Spanish Civil Procedure Act). That period is suspended if, within five days of that same service, you ask for a translation of the foreign decision, and the enforcement is discontinued if the creditor fails to produce it within one month. Outside the Union, thirty days from the moment the court clerk serves you with the exequatur claim. For maintenance decisions given within the Union, forty five days to apply for a review, and before the court that gave the decision, running from the moment you had effective knowledge of its content and were able to act, and at the latest from the day of the first enforcement measure freezing your assets.
Who can bring it: The person against whom enforcement is sought. To seek refusal of recognition alone, any interested party has standing, even before any enforcement has started: this includes a third party harmed by the decision, for example the joint holder of the seized account or a shareholder affected by a corporate judgment. In exequatur proceedings it is enough to show a legitimate interest. A court representative and a lawyer are required, and at Managora we handle that from start to finish.
Financial risk: If the application is dismissed, enforcement goes ahead, the seizure is confirmed and you are ordered to pay the costs of the challenge. Interest keeps accruing in the meantime. Challenging does not by itself suspend enforcement: suspension, limitation to protective measures or replacement by security must be expressly requested and reasoned. And if the decision comes from outside the Union and exequatur is granted, the grounds for refusal can no longer be raised again in the later enforcement.

The first question is not the merits: it is where the judgment comes from

Two identical judgments are defended in entirely different ways depending on the country that gave them, and mixing the two regimes is the fastest way to lose. If the decision comes from a European Union Member State and the subject matter is civil or commercial, the Brussels I bis Regulation applies: there is no exequatur, the decision is enforceable in Spain on its own (Article 39), and the whole defence consists in applying for refusal of recognition or enforcement on one of the grounds in Article 45. If it comes from a State outside the Union, the decision has no effect here until exequatur is obtained under Law 29/2015, and your defence is built inside those proceedings.

Within the Union there are also special regimes that displace the Brussels I bis Regulation by subject matter, and this has to be checked before a single line is drafted. Matrimonial decisions and decisions on parental responsibility fall under the Brussels II ter Regulation, with its own list of grounds in Articles 38 and 39. Succession decisions fall under Regulation 650/2012, which does keep a prior declaration of enforceability. And maintenance decisions fall under Regulation 4/2009, whose Article 17 abolishes exequatur and, for decisions given in States bound by the 2007 Hague Protocol, which is every State except Denmark, closes the door to challenging recognition.

Identifying the right box is not an academic exercise. The deadline, the court, the grounds available to you and even the country where the fight takes place all depend on it. With a maintenance decision given within the Union, for example, recognition is not argued in Spain at all: what is sought is a review before the court that gave the decision, and that changes the timetable and the strategy completely.

The clock starts with the order granting enforcement

The Brussels I bis Regulation sets no deadline for applying for refusal, but Spanish law channels the application and does put a date on it. Final provision twenty five of the Civil Procedure Act requires the claim to be filed under the oral procedure, before the civil section of the Tribunal de Instancia hearing the enforcement, and sets ten days running from the date on which the order granting enforcement is served on you. Ten working days, not calendar days. That is the fact that decides whether there is still a case, and the first thing we will ask you.

There is a little known rule that can extend that period, and it is worth using on day one. Article 43.1 of the Regulation requires the Article 53 certificate to be served on you before the first enforcement measure, together with the decision itself if that has not already been served. And Spanish law gives you five days from service of the order granting enforcement to ask for a translation of the foreign decision. Until it is handed to you, both the opposition period under Article 556.1 of the Civil Procedure Act and the period to respond are suspended, and if the creditor fails to produce the translation within one month the judge discontinues the enforcement.

Outside the Union the clock is different. The court clerk serves you with the exequatur claim and you have thirty days to object, under Article 54.5 of Law 29/2015. And if the decision concerns maintenance and comes from the Union, the period is forty five days to apply for a review before the court of origin, running from the moment you had effective knowledge of the content of the decision and were able to act, and at the latest from the day of the first measure freezing your assets. That period is not extended on account of distance: the rule says so expressly.

The grounds are a closed list and the merits are untouchable

Article 45 of the Brussels I bis Regulation contains a closed list, and outside it there is nothing to argue. Recognition is refused where it is manifestly contrary to Spanish public policy; where the decision was given in default and the defendant was not served with the document instituting the proceedings in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable a defence; where the decision is irreconcilable with one given in Spain between the same parties; where it is irreconcilable with an earlier decision given in another State that meets the conditions for recognition here; and where the decision conflicts with the jurisdiction rules protecting the insured, the consumer or the employee, or with the rules on exclusive jurisdiction.

Just as important is knowing what cannot be argued, because that is where most of these cases are lost. Article 45.3 prohibits any review of the jurisdiction of the court of origin outside the protective rules, and expressly prohibits using public policy as an indirect route to review it. Article 52 prohibits any review of the merits. Law 29/2015 says the same in Article 48 and adds something that surprises many people: recognition cannot be refused because the foreign judge applied a different body of law from the one our conflict rules would have designated. A pleading that reopens the original dispute is dismissed in full, even if it contained one good ground.

Outside the Union the list in Article 46 of Law 29/2015 is somewhat more generous and deserves a careful reading. It does not require default: it is enough that the decision was given in manifest breach of the rights of defence of any of the parties. It allows the jurisdiction of the court of origin to be challenged, since it must rest on a reasonable connection, and it allows you to argue that the subject matter fell within exclusive Spanish jurisdiction. And it admits a ground the Regulation does not contain: that proceedings between the same parties and with the same object were already pending in Spain, started before the foreign ones. Article 49 also allows recognition to be refused for part of the operative provisions only.

Defective service is the ground that wins cases

Of the closed list of grounds, the one that works in practice is almost always the second: the judgment was given without the claim reaching you in time and in conditions that allowed you to defend yourself. But saying you did not find out is not enough. A Spanish court will not take your word against an official certificate: the whole service process has to be reconstructed and the exact point where it broke has to be shown. Which document was sent, to which address, through which channel, in which language, who signed the receipt, and how many days passed between delivery and the hearing or the deadline to respond.

The evidence exists and can be obtained. If the proceedings took place within the Union, the receiving agency issues a certificate of service, form K in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, and that document says more than the judgment itself. That same Regulation gave you the right to refuse to accept a document not drafted in a language you understand or in the official language of the place of service, by returning form L either on the spot or within two weeks, and it requires the court of origin not to give judgment in default without evidence that service was effected in sufficient time. If the proceedings came from a third State, the equivalent is the certificate under the 1965 Hague Service Convention.

And here is the trap that closes more doors than any other. Article 45.1(b) of the Regulation itself neutralises the ground if you found out in time, could have appealed the decision in the country of origin, and did not. The same proviso appears in Article 40(b) of Regulation 650/2012 on succession. Article 46.1(b) of Law 29/2015, by contrast, does not contain it, so under the non Union regime you cannot be reproached for failing to appeal there. And if the deadline to appeal in the country of origin has already passed, one door remains open: Article 22.4 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 allows you to ask the court of origin to relieve you from that time bar, within a reasonable period from the moment you learned of the judgment.

Stopping the seizure while the case is decided

Filing the refusal claim freezes nothing by itself, and that is the most expensive surprise in this kind of case. Article 44.1 of the Regulation allows you to ask the court for three distinct things, and they should all go in the same pleading: to limit enforcement to protective measures, so that assets are attached but not realised; to make enforcement conditional on the creditor providing security; or to stay the enforcement proceedings in whole or in part. Spanish law expressly reproduces this when regulating the refusal procedure, so it is not a favour: it is a request the rule itself provides for.

There is one situation in which suspension stops being discretionary. If the enforceability of the decision has been suspended in the country of origin because an appeal has been lodged there, Article 44.2 of the Regulation requires suspension, and Spanish law adds that it will be ordered without further delay. That is why the first move in many of these cases is made not in Spain but abroad: an appeal is lodged in the country of origin, a stay of enforceability is sought there, and the document proving it is brought to Spain. Article 51 also allows a stay where an ordinary appeal is pending, or where the time limit for lodging it has not even expired.

It is also important not to confuse this claim with ordinary opposition to enforcement. They are two different pleadings and often both have to be filed. Opposition under Article 556.1 of the Civil Procedure Act serves to plead payment, expiry of the right to enforce, and settlements or agreements recorded in a public document; it is also filed within ten days and, importantly, it does not suspend the course of enforcement. Suspension only comes through the Regulation, and only if it is requested.

When the judgment comes from outside the Union

Here the foreign decision is worth nothing in Spain until it goes through exequatur, and that works in your favour because the initial burden lies with the party seeking enforcement. Their claim must be accompanied by the original or an authentic copy of the decision, legalised or apostilled; by the document proving service of the originating process if the decision was given in default; by any document establishing that the decision is final and, where relevant, enforceable in the State of origin; and by the translations required under Article 144 of the Civil Procedure Act. The defence almost always starts there: one of those documents is usually missing, or does not say what the creditor thinks it says.

Two further requirements often close the case before the grounds are even reached. The first is finality: Article 41.1 of Law 29/2015 only allows recognition of final foreign decisions given in contentious proceedings, meaning those against which no appeal lies in the State of origin. The second is time: Article 50.2 expressly refers to the expiry of the right to enforce as regulated in the Civil Procedure Act, whose Article 518 sets it at five years from the date the decision became final. If the judgment has been dormant for years, that is the first argument to look at.

You do not have to sit and wait to be sued. Article 42.2 of Law 29/2015 allows the same proceedings to be used in reverse, to obtain a declaration that the foreign decision cannot be recognised in Spain because one of the grounds in Article 46 applies. That is the right move when someone is waving a foreign judgment around outside the courtroom: at a bank, at a registry or at a fellow shareholder. And if the attempt to rely on it comes through a registry, Article 59.2 gives you twenty days to object to the registrar's decision before the entry is made.

How we run the case, step by step

1
Date the service and settle the regime
The first thing is the exact date on which the order granting enforcement or the exequatur claim was served on you, with the stamp or the electronic receipt, because the ten days, the five days for the translation and the thirty days to object all run from there. In parallel, the applicable regime is settled: country of origin, subject matter and the date the foreign proceedings started. That triangle decides whether the case runs under the Brussels I bis Regulation, under a sectoral regulation, under an international convention or under Law 29/2015.
2
Ask for the translation within five days if the decision is not in Spanish
It is a short pleading and it is filed the same day, not at the end of the period. Until the translation is handed to you, the period to oppose enforcement and the period to respond are both suspended, and if the creditor fails to produce it within one month the judge discontinues the enforcement. It costs little and sometimes it resolves the case on its own. Under the non Union regime the equivalent is challenging, from the outset, the adequacy of the translations filed with the exequatur claim.
3
Reconstruct service in the original proceedings
A full copy of the case file is requested from the court of origin, not just the judgment: the claim form, the service request, the certificate from the receiving agency, the failed attempts and the decision declaring you in default. The defence is built on that material, and it allows you to calculate whether the time between delivery and the deadline to respond was genuinely sufficient. It is the slow part of the work and the part that decides the outcome, so it starts on day one and not once everything else is drafted.
4
File the refusal claim and request suspension in the same pleading
The claim follows Article 437 of the Civil Procedure Act, is addressed to the civil section of the Tribunal de Instancia hearing the enforcement, relies only on Article 45 grounds and comes with the documentary evidence and the proposal of any further evidence. The same pleading requests limitation to protective measures, security or the stay provided for in Article 44.1, and asks for a hearing where one is desirable, because if neither party requests it the judge may decide without one.
5
Open a front in the country that gave the decision
If an appeal is still available there, or relief from the time bar can be sought, it is done in parallel and for two reasons. The first is that failing to appeal when you could have done so destroys the defective service ground under the Union regime. The second is that a stay of enforceability in the country of origin obliges the Spanish judge to suspend enforcement here. For maintenance decisions given within the Union this is not a parallel route but the only one: the review is sought there, within forty five days.
6
Appeal within twenty days if the order goes against you
The order can be appealed to the Audiencia Provincial, within twenty days of service, and then, where available, to the Supreme Court. The appellate court may stay the proceedings if an ordinary appeal has been lodged in the country of origin or if the time limit for lodging one has not yet expired, so suspension is back on the table at second instance. The decision has to be taken quickly: twenty days run out fast when documents have to be obtained abroad.

The evidence that decides the case

The Article 53 certificate under the Brussels I bis Regulation and the foreign decision itself, with the exact date and manner in which they were served on you. If they were not served before the first enforcement measure, there is a defect to raise.
The certificate of service from the original proceedings: form K in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 if the proceedings took place within the Union, or the certificate under the 1965 Hague Service Convention if they came from a third State. It states what was delivered, to whom, where, in which language and on which date, and it is the document that really decides the case.
Evidence that on that date you were not at that address or could not have received the document: a historic municipal registration certificate, a tenancy agreement and its termination, consular registration, travel records, or the employment contract placing you in another country.
The complete file of the foreign proceedings, not just the judgment: the claim form, the attempts at service, the decision declaring you in default and the one setting the deadline to respond. That is what allows you to calculate whether the time you had to defend yourself was genuinely sufficient, which is what the rule requires.
If you rely on irreconcilability, the Spanish decision or the third State decision that clashes with the foreign one, with the certificate that it is final and, where relevant, evidence that it meets the conditions for recognition here. If you rely on earlier pending proceedings in Spain, a copy of the claim with its filing date.
If you rely on public policy, evidence of the specific defect: the refusal of decisive evidence, the absence of reasoning, a disproportionate punitive award or documented lack of impartiality. Disagreement with the outcome proves nothing and sinks the whole pleading.

What closes the door

Letting the ten days from the order granting enforcement run out. This is the mistake that most often closes the case for good, and it happens because people think they must first gather documents from abroad. They must not: the claim is filed and suspension requested first, and the evidence is completed afterwards.
Having been able to appeal the decision in the country of origin and not doing so. Article 45.1(b) of the Regulation by itself neutralises the defective service ground where an appeal was available there, and Article 40(b) of Regulation 650/2012 does the same. It is a step of your own that cannot be undone.
Drafting a challenge that argues the merits. Article 52 of the Regulation and Article 48 of Law 29/2015 prohibit this without qualification, and a pleading that reopens the dispute is dismissed in full even if it contained a good ground. Nor does it help to argue that the foreign judge applied a different law from the one that should have applied.
Filing the refusal claim without requesting a stay or limitation to protective measures. Enforcement continues while the case is decided, assets are realised, and by the time a favourable order arrives there is nothing left to return without starting fresh proceedings.
Treating a maintenance decision given within the Union as if it were an ordinary civil judgment. Article 17 of Regulation 4/2009 abolishes exequatur and, for States bound by the 2007 Hague Protocol, leaves no room to challenge recognition. While a pleading that does not lie is being prepared, the forty five days for review before the court of origin run out.
Appearing abroad to put up a half defence, or letting someone appear without instructions. If there was an appearance there was no default, and the defective service ground disappears. Before responding to anything outside Spain, you have to decide what you want to do here.

The law that applies

Art. 45 Reglamento Bruselas I bis. A closed list of grounds for refusing recognition: manifest breach of public policy, default judgment without proper and timely service, irreconcilability with a Spanish decision or an earlier decision from another State, and conflict with the protective or exclusive jurisdiction rules. Paragraph 3 prohibits any review of the jurisdiction of the court of origin and the use of public policy to review it. 32012R1215
Art. 43 y 44 Reglamento Bruselas I bis. The Article 53 certificate must be served on the debtor before the first enforcement measure, and a debtor domiciled in another Member State may request a translation of the decision, with only protective measures available until then. Article 44 allows enforcement to be limited to protective measures, made conditional on security or stayed, and requires a stay where enforceability has been suspended in the State of origin. 32012R1215
Art. 52 Reglamento Bruselas I bis. A decision given in a Member State may in no circumstances be reviewed as to its substance in Spain. 32012R1215
Disposición final vigésima quinta, apartados 3 y 4, LEC. This provision channels refusal of recognition and enforcement under the Brussels I bis Regulation in Spain: an oral procedure before the court hearing the enforcement, a claim within ten days of service of the order granting enforcement, five days to request the translation with suspension of the time limits until it is delivered, discontinuance if it is not produced within one month, and a stay without further delay where enforceability has been suspended in the State of origin. BOE-A-2000-323
Art. 556.1 LEC. Ordinary opposition to the enforcement of a judgment is filed within ten days of service of the order granting it, and only allows payment, expiry of the right to enforce, and settlements recorded in a public document to be pleaded. Paragraph 2 makes clear that such opposition does not suspend enforcement. BOE-A-2000-323
Art. 518 LEC. The right to enforce a judgment expires if the enforcement claim is not filed within five years of the judgment becoming final, a period to which Law 29/2015 expressly refers for the enforcement of foreign decisions. BOE-A-2000-323
Art. 46 Ley 29/2015. Grounds for refusing recognition outside the Union: public policy, manifest breach of the rights of defence of any of the parties, exclusive Spanish jurisdiction or the absence of a reasonable connection for the court of origin, irreconcilability with a Spanish decision or an earlier recognisable one, and proceedings pending in Spain commenced before the foreign ones. BOE-A-2015-8564
Art. 54.5 Ley 29/2015. Once the exequatur claim is admitted, it is served on the defendant, who has thirty days to object and may attach documents challenging the authenticity of the decision, the correctness of service, and its finality or enforceability. BOE-A-2015-8564
Art. 42.2 Ley 29/2015. The same exequatur proceedings may be used in reverse, to obtain a declaration that a foreign decision cannot be recognised in Spain because one of the grounds in Article 46 applies. BOE-A-2015-8564
Art. 48 Ley 29/2015. It prohibits any review of the substance of the foreign decision and makes clear that recognition cannot be refused because the foreign judge applied a different body of law from the one Spanish conflict of laws rules would have designated. BOE-A-2015-8564
Art. 17 y 19 Reglamento 4/2009 de alimentos. For maintenance decisions given in a State bound by the 2007 Hague Protocol, exequatur is abolished and recognition cannot be challenged. The only route is a review before the court of origin, which must be sought promptly and in any event within forty five days from the moment the defendant learned of the content of the decision and was able to act, and at the latest from the first measure freezing their assets. 32009R0004
Art. 40 y 50.5 Reglamento 650/2012 de sucesiones. In succession matters the declaration of enforceability survives; it is granted without hearing the other party and without examining the grounds for refusal. Those grounds can only be argued on appeal, which must be brought within thirty days of service, or sixty days if the party is domiciled in another Member State, with no extension on account of distance. 32012R0650
Art. 38, 39 y 41 Reglamento Bruselas II ter. Matrimonial decisions and decisions on parental responsibility have their own list of grounds for refusal, including public policy taking into account the best interests of the child, default without sufficient service, the failure to hear the person exercising parental responsibility, and the failure to give the child an opportunity to express their views. 32019R1111
Art. 8.6 Ley 60/2003 de Arbitraje. Recognition of foreign arbitral awards falls to the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Justice for the domicile of the party against whom it is sought, with subsequent enforcement before the first instance court. It is not the same route as for court judgments and the two cannot be mixed. BOE-A-2003-23646
Disposición transitoria primera LO 1/2025. The former Juzgados were converted into sections of the Tribunales de Instancia in stages, and on 31 December 2025 the remaining ones were converted. That is why refusal of recognition and exequatur are today sought before the civil section of the Tribunal de Instancia. BOE-A-2025-76

Each article checked against the consolidated text published in the BOE (the Spanish official gazette).

Frequently asked questions

The claim never reached me. Is saying so enough?

No. Against an official certificate of service, your statement does not win. What wins is the document: the certificate from the receiving agency, the address it was sent to, the signature of whoever received it and the date. That is what shows that delivery was irregular, or that the time before the hearing did not allow you to defend yourself. We request that file from the court of origin as soon as we take the case, because it takes time to arrive.

The judgment is unfair. Can I ask a Spanish court to review it?

No, and this is the point that is hardest to accept. The Spanish judge does not retry the case: they only check whether one of the closed list of grounds applies. They cannot even refuse recognition because the foreign court applied a different law from the one we would have applied. What is examined is how that judgment was arrived at, and that is usually where the case lies.

My account has already been frozen. Can it be released?

It can be applied for, and it must be applied for expressly in the same pleading, because it does not happen by itself. The court may limit enforcement to protective measures, so the money stays attached but is not handed over, make enforcement conditional on the creditor providing security, or stay it. And if you obtain a stay of enforceability in the country of origin, the Spanish judge must suspend enforcement here.

The judgment comes from a country outside the European Union. Does that change much?

It changes things for the better, at least to start with. That decision is worth nothing in Spain until the party seeking enforcement obtains exequatur, and it is for them to produce the legalised or apostilled decision, proof of service if it was a default judgment, evidence that it is final, and the translations. You have thirty days to object from the moment it is served on you, and the list of grounds is broader than within the Union.

It is a child maintenance decision given in another Union country. What do I do?

That case is governed by its own rules and you have to move fast. If the decision comes from a State bound by the 2007 Hague Protocol, recognition cannot be challenged in Spain. What is available is an application for review before the court that gave it, with a forty five day period starting when you learned of the content of the decision and were able to act, and at the latest with the first measure freezing your assets. In Spain you can only seek refusal or suspension of enforcement on grounds of limitation or incompatibility with another decision.

I was ordered to pay in the United Kingdom. Does the European regime still apply?

No. Since the United Kingdom left the Union, its judgments no longer circulate under the Brussels I bis Regulation. Depending on when the proceedings started there, and on whether there was a choice of court clause, what may apply is the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments, in force for the United Kingdom since 1 July 2025 and applicable to proceedings started on or after that date, or exequatur under Law 29/2015. Working out which of the three applies is the first task in the case, because the deadline and the grounds follow from it.

This guide explains how the action works in general. It does not replace the study of your own case: deadlines depend on when things happened and on what you have done since.