The breakdown of a marriage with international elements raises questions of immediate and urgent practical importance: which court has jurisdiction? Which law governs the divorce? Is a foreign divorce judgment enforceable in Italy? This article answers these questions with legal precision, setting out the applicable regulatory framework, the most common operational pitfalls, and the latest rulings issued by the Italian Court of Cassation on separation and divorce proceedings with cross-border elements.
The breakdown of a marriage involving spouses of different nationalities — or spouses who reside in a country other than their own — is a rapidly growing phenomenon. In Italy alone, more than five million foreign nationals are permanently resident on Italian territory, many of them married to fellow nationals or to citizens of other countries, often under a marriage contracted abroad and never registered in the Italian civil status registers. When such a marriage enters crisis, the technical complexity involved is considerably greater than in a purely domestic separation or divorce: the proceedings engage rules of private international law, connecting criteria between different legal systems, and European-level regulations that determine — often with very little transparency for those outside the legal profession — which court has jurisdiction and which law must be applied to the specific case.
As Albert Camus wrote in Exile and the Kingdom, exile is always a double condition: that of someone who has left something behind and that of someone who cannot quite arrive anywhere. For those living this condition in the middle of a family crisis in a foreign country, understanding alone is not enough: clear rules, rigorous application and a competent legal adviser are essential. Experience gained in handling proceedings with international elements consistently shows that most of the errors made — often irreversible in terms of status and economic consequences — arise from an incorrect initial assessment of the competent forum or of the applicable law: two questions that must be addressed as an absolute priority, before any other procedural or out-of-court step is taken.
The European and domestic regulatory framework: Brussels II-ter, Rome III and Law No. 218/1995
Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111, commonly known as Brussels II-ter, applicable from 1 August 2022 as a replacement for the previous Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 (Brussels II-bis), is today the primary reference for determining jurisdictional competence in matters of separation, divorce and parental responsibility involving couples with connections within the European Union. Article 3 of the Regulation sets out seven alternative grounds of jurisdiction — non-hierarchical, meaning that each spouse may rely on whichever ground is most favourable to their position — based on the habitual residence of the spouses or of either of them individually, on their nationality, or on their last common place of residence. Habitual residence, as European case law has clarified, is not a matter of administrative registration but a question of fact: it is the place where a person has established the stable and permanent centre of their life interests, assessed through concrete factors such as employment, schooling of children and daily affective ties. Each criterion allows, where the conditions laid down by the Regulation are met, for proceedings to be brought before the courts of a different Member State — with the significant consequence that both spouses might have an interest in filing first, in different courts, giving rise to a phenomenon of forum shopping that Brussels II-ter seeks to contain through the rule of temporal priority.
For couples involving nationals of countries outside the European Union, the primary reference for jurisdiction is Italian Law No. 218 of 1995, whose Article 32 governs Italian jurisdiction in matrimonial matters. The Italian court has jurisdiction when one of the spouses holds Italian citizenship, when both spouses reside in Italy, or when the marriage was celebrated in Italy. Even the mere domicile of one spouse on Italian territory may found the jurisdiction of the Italian court, provided that the connection with the territory is genuine and stable. A practically important point which the Court of Cassation has repeatedly confirmed is that the failure to register a marriage contracted abroad in the Italian civil status registers does not constitute an obstacle to Italian jurisdiction and does not preclude the possibility of obtaining a valid separation or divorce judgment: the judgment simply cannot be annotated in the Italian registers until the marriage has been registered there, but this is a subsequent and distinct problem from the jurisdictional question.
Once jurisdiction has been established, the next step — one frequently underestimated even by practitioners unfamiliar with the subject — concerns the law applicable to the separation or divorce proceedings. Here the operative instrument is Regulation (EU) No. 1259/2010, known as Rome III, which applies in the seventeen participating Member States, including Italy. The Regulation allows spouses to choose by mutual agreement the law applicable to their divorce, from a closed list of options: the law of the State in which the spouses have their habitual residence at the time the agreement is concluded; the law of their last common habitual residence if one of them still resides there; the law of the nationality of either spouse at the time the agreement is concluded; or the law of the forum. The choice may be made at any point during the proceedings, provided it is made within the procedural time limits applicable in the relevant forum.
In the absence of a choice, the Regulation provides a cascade of criteria applied in sequence: first, the law of the State of the spouses' common habitual residence at the time the application is lodged; failing that, the law of their last common habitual residence, provided that period ended no more than one year before the application and one of them still resides there; failing that, the law of their common nationality; and finally, as a residual criterion, the law of the forum — that is, the law of the country whose courts are seised of the application. This cascade structure produces consequences of great practical importance. Two spouses of Chinese nationality who have been residing in Verona for years and have not previously chosen the applicable law will have the Italian court apply Italian law as lex fori, since both are habitually resident in Italy. Two spouses of Romanian nationality residing in Italy will likewise, in the absence of a choice, have Italian law applied as the law of their common habitual residence; yet they could have chosen to apply Romanian law, being the law of their common nationality, which might have entailed significant differences in terms of grounds for divorce, duration of legal separation and the regulation of economic consequences.
A critical issue that practice reveals with considerable frequency concerns the limits on the application of any foreign law designated under the cascade rules. Article 12 of the Rome III Regulation allows the court to disapply the designated foreign law when it is manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the forum. This clause has been invoked, in particular, to override national laws that do not provide for divorce at all, or that grant the husband a unilateral right to repudiate the wife — provisions held to be contrary to fundamental principles of the Italian legal order and to the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. In this context, public policy does not mean the entirety of Italian mandatory rules, but rather the fundamental constitutional and Convention values, including the equal standing of both spouses in the dissolution proceedings.
As regards the matrimonial property regime, the applicable law does not necessarily coincide with the law governing the divorce under Rome III. Matrimonial property regimes are governed by Regulation (EU) No. 1103/2016, which applies its own autonomous connecting criteria: the primary reference is the law of the State of the spouses' first habitual residence after the marriage, followed by the law of their common nationality, followed by the law of the country with which the couple had the closest connection at the time of the marriage. The fact that the couple subsequently moves and resides in Italy for many years does not, in principle, alter the property regime already established under the law of the first post-marriage residence, unless the spouses have expressly agreed otherwise in the forms required. This divergence can produce complex situations in which the divorce is pronounced applying Italian law while the liquidation of the matrimonial property regime follows the rules of a different legal system, with potential incompatibilities that the legal adviser must be equipped to manage.
Economic protections, spousal support and pre-crisis agreements: the most recent rulings of the Court of Cassation
On the question of post-matrimonial economic protections, Italian case law has developed an increasingly refined approach to the nature and criteria of the post-divorce spousal allowance (assegno divorzile), with rulings that apply in full to proceedings involving foreign spouses whenever the Italian court applies Italian law. The Court of Cassation, First Section, with Order No. 1482 of 21 January 2025, restated clearly that the court of first or second instance, when assessing the merits of an application for revision of the post-divorce spousal allowance, is required to carry out a comparative and current analysis of the respective economic and financial positions of the former spouses. The ruling censured the Court of Appeal's decision for having omitted that comparative enquiry, confining itself to noting a change in the circumstances of one former spouse alone without verifying whether and to what extent that change had altered the overall economic equilibrium established at the time of the divorce. This criterion is particularly significant in cases with international elements, where the patrimonial situations of the former spouses may be distributed across different countries and may require painstaking reconstruction through instruments of judicial cooperation.
With subsequent Order No. 9887/2025, the First Section of the Court of Cassation further clarified that the post-divorce spousal allowance must be assessed in light of the entire marital trajectory, with particular attention to the causal link between the current economic imbalance between the former spouses and the choices made jointly during the marriage. Specifically relevant are career sacrifices, professional opportunities foregone, and each spouse's contribution to the management of family life. This approach reinforces the rebalancing function of the allowance: a spouse who sacrificed professional opportunities in furtherance of the common life project is entitled to proportional economic recognition, even in the absence of financial need in the strict sense. In proceedings involving foreign spouses, this principle carries particular weight where one of the two followed the other in relocating to Italy, thereby surrendering their professional network in the country of origin.
Of major practical relevance for international couples is Court of Cassation, First Section, Order No. 20415/2025, which confirmed the full legal validity of so-called pre-separation agreements (patti in vista della separazione), characterising them as atypical contracts subject to a lawful suspensive condition: the agreement is not the cause of the separation, but takes effect only if and when the separation occurs. The Court firmly rejected the public policy objection raised by a spouse who sought to invalidate a pre-existing patrimonial agreement he had previously signed. For couples with international elements, this ruling is especially significant: it allows the parties to plan the post-crisis economic settlement in advance, reducing the uncertainty arising from potential conflicts between different legal systems and from the difficulties of cross-border enforcement of economic decisions.
As the Latin maxim teaches, "ubi ius incertum, ibi ius nullum" — where the law is uncertain, it is as though there were no law at all. And in no field is this uncertainty more tangible than in international divorce, where the overlapping of European regulations, national statutes and multilateral conventions can transform an already painful situation into a labyrinthine process. Prevention — through formally recorded pre-crisis agreements, explicit choices of applicable law inserted into the marriage deed or subsequent instruments, and a careful initial assessment of the most favourable forum — is the most effective tool available to those who are aware of the risks.
A final area of operational complexity concerns the recognition in Italy of a foreign divorce judgment and, conversely, the enforceability in the spouses' country of origin of an Italian divorce judgment. As regards recognition in Italy, Article 64 of Law No. 218/1995 provides for automatic effectiveness — without the need for exequatur proceedings — provided that the exhaustive list of conditions is satisfied: the international jurisdiction of the foreign court according to Italian jurisdictional criteria, respect for the respondent's rights of defence, the judgment having acquired res judicata status in the country of origin, the absence of conflict with Italian judgments, the absence of pending proceedings in Italy between the same parties, and non-contrariety to Italian public policy. For divorce judgments issued by EU Member States, Brussels II-ter ensures automatic recognition without any separate procedure: the civil registrar proceeds to annotation upon verifying that the conditions of compatibility are met, with the option of referring the matter to the Public Prosecutor's Office in cases of doubt. For judgments from non-EU countries, the document must be legalised or bear an apostille under the Hague Convention of 1961, accompanied by a sworn translation into Italian and a careful verification of the applicable conditions by the civil registrar. Where the acquisition of res judicata status is not unambiguously evidenced, or where compatibility with public policy is in doubt, a formal application to the competent Court of Appeal for recognition under Article 30 of Legislative Decree No. 150/2011 will be required.
If you are facing a separation or divorce with international elements — whether you are a foreign national residing in Italy, an Italian citizen with a foreign spouse, or someone who needs a judgment issued abroad to be recognised in Italy — Studio Legale MP in Verona provides technically precise, rigorous and personalised legal assistance. An analysis of your specific situation is the indispensable starting point for choosing the most effective strategy, protecting your economic rights and ensuring the full validity of the proceedings in your country of origin as well.
Redazione - Staff Studio Legale MP
