Malta Court of Appeal Denies Enforcement of US$740 Million Defamation Judgment Based on Jurisdiction and Public Policy
On 14th October 2025, the Maltese Court of Appeal delivered a judgement in Mehmet Tatlici (the “Plaintiff”) v Ugur Tatlici (the “Defendant”), rejecting the Plaintiff’s appeal and confirming the first instance decision. The Court held that a Florida judgement ordering the Defendant to pay US$740 million in damages for defamation (the “US Judgement”), could not be recognised and enforced in Malta due to a lack of jurisdiction, as well as a violation of Maltese public policy.
Background
The US Judgement arose from allegations that certain online publications on social media harmed the Plaintiff’s reputation. The Florida court ordered the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff US$740 million for damages. The Plaintiff sought to recognise and enforce the US Judgement in Malta due to the presence of local assets belonging to the Defendant.
Following objections raised by the Defendant, the First Hall of the Civil Court blocked enforcement of the US Judgement on several grounds. The Plaintiff felt aggrieved by the judgement of the First Court and appealed.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the First Hall of the Civil Court for the following reasons:
1. Jurisdiction
The Court found that it did not have the necessary jurisdiction to hear and decide the demand for recognition and enforcement of the US Judgement. It referred to Article 742(1)(a) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (“COCP”), which provides that the civil courts of Malta have jurisdiction to try actions concerning citizen of Malta provided that they have not fixed their domicile elsewhere. Although the Defendant had acquired Maltese citizenship through the Individual Investment Program, his place of domicile was Turkey.
The Court further observed that none of the other jurisdictional grounds laid out in the COCP were satisfied, including, in particular, Article 742(1)(c), which grants jurisdiction over matters concerning property situated or existing in Malta. The Plaintiff had asserted that the Defendant was the UBO of two Maltese companies, and while no evidence had been exhibited to prove this, it was evident that the Plaintiff intended to execute the US Judgement on those shares.
The jurisdictional ground laid out in Article 742(1)(c) of the COCP cannot apply to an action for recognition of a foreign judgement, since this provision only applies to a real action concerning an asset located in Malta, and the Plaintiff’s request for enforcement of the US Judgement did not directly and specifically relate to the shares held by the Defendant in the two Maltese companies.
2. Public Policy
The Court considered that the award of US$740 million in damages for defamation contradicted Maltese public policy. While moral damages can be awarded in certain instances, Maltese law does not permit such astronomical sums by way of damages in defamation cases, and in fact the Media and Defamation Act limits moral damages for defamation to €5,000. The court considered that this forms part of Maltese public policy because it safeguards a person’s freedom of expression – a fundamental human right.
While the Plaintiff tried to argue that the figure concerned ‘real damages’ suffered, the Court found that this had not been proved. The brief extract of the US Judgement exhibited by the Plaintiff lacked any reasons or motivation which did not prove that the damages actually represented ‘real damages’.
The Court made reference to the case in the names Schoeller International GmbH v. Mario Ellul et which established that “a judgement is not considered to be contrary to the public order of Malta solely because if it had been heard and decided here in Malta, it would have been decided differently; it is contrary to public order if it creates a conflict with those main principles of the legal order which are the core of the legal system by protecting the most fundamental values of the society”.
The Court concluded that the US Judgement awarding moral damages in the sum of US$740 million is contrary to public policy in light of the maximum moral damages awardable under the Maltese framework for defamation, which strikes a balance between a person’s right to good reputation and the right to freedom of expression.
Concluding Remarks
The ability to enforce foreign judgements in Malta is an essential feature of cross-border judicial cooperation, ensuring the effectiveness of those judgements. This is important where there are assets available locally for execution – an increasingly-real possibility, due to Malta’s attractiveness to foreign investment and non-resident shareholders. Nevertheless, Maltese Courts must have jurisdiction for recognition and enforcement. For EU judgements, there is a very broad and straightforward rule granting jurisdiction simply because the judgement is to be enforced here. For non-EU judgements, including from the US or the UK, jurisdiction is not so easily established. As stated clearly by the Court of Appeal in this case, the mere presence of local assets may not be sufficient.
Disclaimer: Ganado Advocates is responsible for contributing to this law report but was not in any way involved as legal advisor for the parties in the judgement being covered in this law report. This article was first published in ‘The Malta Independent’ on 14/01/2026.
