How to enforce a foreign court judgments in China?
Time:2025-06-23 18:47:41Source:Click:次
As cross-border transactions and disputes increase, the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments have become crucial, particularly when assets are located in multiple jurisdictions. Due to the principle of judicial sovereignty, such judgments require formal recognition to be enforceable in other countries. This raises the key question: how can foreign court judgments be recognized and enforced in China?
I. What Constitutes a Foreign Court Judgment
The term "foreign court" should be interpreted broadly and is not limited to institutions formally named as "courts." In certain jurisdictions, administrative bodies may also possess authority to adjudicate civil and commercial matters. For example, in the United Kingdom, the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council function as judicial authorities; similarly, in countries such as Poland, notarial offices are authorized to resolve small property disputes and matters relating to the validity of wills and the administration of estates. In treaties on judicial assistance concluded between China and various foreign states, the scope of recognition and enforcement includes decisions rendered by "courts or other competent authorities." Therefore, the determination of whether a body qualifies as a "court" must be made in accordance with the laws of the country where that body is located.
A "judgment" must pertain to civil or commercial matters. Criminal or administrative judgments, being punitive and public in nature, are generally excluded from recognition and enforcement except under special circumstances. However, the civil portion of a criminal judgment (i.e., the civil compensation component) may be eligible for recognition and enforcement.
Furthermore, a "judgment" must resolve substantive issues and be legally effective. Whether a judgment is legally effective depends on the law of the state where it was rendered. Judgments that are pending appeal or subject to appeal do not meet this criterion. Article 298 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China ("Civil Procedure Law") provides that Chinese courts may recognize and enforce "legally effective judgments and rulings rendered by foreign courts." In practice, the scope of such enforceable instruments is not limited to “judgments” and “rulings,” but may also include decisions, orders, and similar legal documents—excluding, however, interim measures and other procedural instruments.
[Note] Requirements for Filing an Application
To apply for recognition and enforcement, the applicant must submit a formal written application along with the original or a duly certified copy of the foreign judgment, as well as documentation evidencing the judgment’s legal effectiveness. For default judgments, proof that the absent party was properly served by the foreign court must also be provided. All documents submitted must be accompanied by an official Chinese translation bearing the stamp of the translation agency. Documents executed outside the territory of China must be notarized and legalized or accompanied by an Apostille, as appropriate.
The application should include: the basic information of the applicant and the respondent; the name of the foreign court and details of the judgment; the specific relief sought and supporting grounds; the current status and location of the respondent’s assets; and information regarding the enforcement status of the judgment outside China.
II. Legal Basis for Recognition and Enforcement in China
Article 299 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China provides that Chinese courts shall review applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in accordance with international treaties concluded or acceded to by the People’s Republic of China, or on the basis of the principle of reciprocity.
1. Treaty-Based Mechanism
To date, China has not acceded to any multilateral convention specifically focused on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Although China signed the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements in September 2017, it has not yet been ratified by the National People’s Congress. China also participated in the negotiation of the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters and signed the final act of the convention on July 3, 2019, but has not yet formally approved or acceded to the convention itself.
Accordingly, priority is given to bilateral treaties that contain provisions on the recognition and enforcement of civil or commercial judgments. As of 2024, China has concluded bilateral treaties on civil (or commercial) judicial assistance with 40 countries. Of these, 38 treaties have entered into force, and 35 of them include specific clauses on the recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments.
These bilateral treaties have played a significant role in promoting mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between China and treaty partners. In practice, the majority of foreign court judgments that have been successfully recognized and enforced in China have relied on such treaty-based mechanisms.
Case Example
A sales contract dispute arose between Ningbo Y Company and Polish company F. In 2009, a Polish court rendered a judgment in favor of F Company. F subsequently applied for recognition and enforcement of the judgment in China. Ningbo Y Company objected, arguing that the application exceeded the statutory time limit for compulsory enforcement.
The Chinese court held that the case should be reviewed in accordance with the Agreement between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Poland on Civil and Criminal Judicial Assistance and the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. Applying Chinese law on enforcement limitation periods, including rules on the suspension and interruption of limitation periods, the court concluded that F Company's application was filed within the legally prescribed time frame. Accordingly, the court granted recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment.
2. Principle of Reciprocity
Also known as the "principle of comity," reciprocity is an ancient legal doctrine and a fundamental principle of international law, developed from Dutch jurist Ulrich Huber’s theory of comitas gentium (international comity). It reflects the sovereign equality and independence of states and can be understood through concepts such as good faith, mutual benefit, and reciprocal obligation. In essence, a state that receives a benefit from another state bears an obligation to reciprocate.
There are generally four forms of reciprocity:
(1) Legal Reciprocity
This refers to determining, under the laws of the state where the foreign judgment was rendered, whether a Chinese court judgment could be recognized and enforced in that jurisdiction. Legal reciprocity does not require an actual instance of enforcement but may be established under the “substantially equivalent conditions” approach, where the core legal requirements in both countries are deemed materially equivalent.
(2) De Facto Reciprocity
This exists when a foreign court has, in practice, recognized and enforced a Chinese court judgment. As a result, China, on the basis of reciprocity, may recognize and enforce judgments from that country.
Case Example:
A Korean resident, Mr. Yoon, borrowed 80 million KRW from Mr. Choi and failed to repay the loan. Mr. Choi obtained a favorable judgment from a local court in South Korea. Since Mr. Yoon’s habitual residence was in Qingdao, Mr. Choi applied to a Chinese court for recognition and enforcement. The Chinese court found that a Korean court (Seoul District Court) had previously recognized a judgment issued by the Weifang Intermediate People’s Court in Shandong Province. Accordingly, based on de facto reciprocity, the Chinese court granted recognition and enforcement of the Korean judgment.
(3) Unilateral Reciprocity Commitments
In the absence of a bilateral judicial assistance treaty, a foreign state may issue a diplomatic note affirming its willingness to provide reciprocal treatment for Chinese judgments. Such a commitment, once made, is binding and takes effect immediately. If the foreign state does not expressly deny the existence of reciprocity when asked to recognize a Chinese judgment, China will consider reciprocity to exist and shall uphold the commitment.
Case Example:
China and Azerbaijan have not signed a bilateral treaty on mutual recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments. When a Chinese court sought to have a judgment recognized and enforced in Azerbaijan, the Supreme People’s Court of China made a formal judicial assistance request and issued a unilateral commitment. In 2019, the Chinese Embassy in Azerbaijan, alongside the assistance request, issued a diplomatic note stating that China would provide equivalent assistance to Azerbaijan under similar circumstances. This marked the first time China proactively issued a unilateral reciprocity commitment in the context of civil and commercial judgment enforcement.
(4) Presumed Reciprocity (Consensus-Based Reciprocity)
In 2015, the Supreme People’s Court issued the Opinions on Providing Judicial Services and Safeguards for the Belt and Road Initiative, introducing a “first-to-offer” approach—granting judicial assistance to parties from Belt and Road countries based on a comprehensive assessment of international cooperation. In 2017, the Second China-ASEAN Chief Justices’ Roundtable adopted the Nanning Statement, which recognized China’s proposed model of presumed reciprocity.
On August 31, 2018, the Supreme People’s Court of China and the Supreme Court of Singapore signed the Memorandum of Guidance between the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and the Supreme Court of Singapore on the Recognition and Enforcement of Money Judgments in Commercial Cases (“Memorandum”). This document provides judicial guidance for parties from both countries seeking recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial money judgments, thereby enhancing legal certainty.
Case Example:
In a loan dispute between Zhao and Ye, the High Court of Singapore issued an order in June 2023 requiring Ye to repay the debt. Zhao applied for recognition and enforcement of the order in China. The Chinese court, noting the Memorandum signed with Singapore and the mutual understanding reached regarding commercial money judgments, recognized and enforced the Singapore court’s order.
III. Grounds for Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement
A Chinese court may refuse to recognize or enforce a foreign judgment under the following circumstances:
1. Lack of Jurisdiction by the Foreign Court
If the court that rendered the foreign judgment lacked jurisdiction under its own laws, or if there was no appropriate connection between the forum and the underlying dispute, or if the judgment violates the exclusive jurisdiction provisions under China’s Civil Procedure Law, recognition and enforcement will be denied. The same applies where an exclusive forum selection agreement exists between the parties and the foreign court proceeded in disregard of it. Additionally, if the foreign court issued a default judgment and the Chinese court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties—and the absent party did not explicitly waive the arbitration clause—the judgment will not be recognized or enforced.
2. Lack of Proper Notice or Due Process
Where the respondent was not duly summoned, or although summoned, was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to present a defense, or where a party lacking legal capacity was not properly represented, recognition and enforcement shall be denied.
Case Example:
Russian company C filed a lawsuit against Chinese company J in a local Russian court over a contractual dispute. The court issued a default judgment against J. C sought recognition and enforcement of the judgment in China. Upon review under the Treaty between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters, the Chinese court found that the service of process did not meet the six-month minimum notice period required by Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention. Since the service was defective, the court held that J was not duly summoned and thus refused recognition and enforcement.
3. Fraudulent Judgments
If the foreign judgment was obtained through fraud—i.e., by improper or unlawful means—it shall not be recognized or enforced, as such judgments are not entitled to legal protection.
4. Res Judicata or Prior Recognition of a Conflicting Judgment
Recognition and enforcement shall be refused if a Chinese court has already rendered a final judgment on the same dispute, or if a judgment or arbitral award from a third country on the same matter has already been recognized and enforced in China.
5. Violation of Public Policy
Recognition and enforcement may be denied if the foreign judgment violates China’s public policy. This includes contraventions of fundamental principles of Chinese law, infringement of national sovereignty, threats to public security, or offenses to good morals (ordre public).
6. Punitive Damages Grossly Exceeding Actual Losses
Where a foreign court awards damages that clearly exceed the actual losses suffered—particularly in the form of punitive damages—Chinese courts may enforce only the portion representing actual compensatory damages and refuse to recognize the punitive portion. While punitive damages are commonly awarded in tort, contract, and maritime cases under common law systems such as those in the U.K. and the U.S., Chinese law limits compensation to actual losses and prohibits unjust enrichment of the injured party. Therefore, only compensatory elements of such foreign judgments are eligible for recognition and enforcement in China.
IV. Procedural Considerations
1. Service of the Application and Right to Respond
The application for recognition and enforcement must be served on the respondent. The respondent shall submit its written response within 15 days from the date of receiving the copy of the application. If the respondent has no domicile within the territory of China, the response period shall be 30 days.
The respondent may challenge the court’s jurisdiction. If dissatisfied with the court’s ruling on jurisdiction, the respondent may file an appeal in accordance with applicable procedures.
[Note] Which courts have jurisdiction over such applications?
Applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments may be submitted to the intermediate people’s court located in:
-the respondent’s domicile,
-the place where the respondent's property is located, or
-the applicant’s domicile.
2. Application for Property Preservation
After the court accepts the application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment, the applicant may request property preservation. In doing so, the applicant must provide security and identify the assets to be preserved.
3. Legal Effect and Reconsideration of Court Rulings
Once the Chinese court renders its ruling on recognition and enforcement, such ruling shall take legal effect upon service. If a party objects to the ruling, it may apply for reconsideration to the next higher court within 10 days of receiving the ruling.
For more information, please contact: gaohexin@163.com
