In cross-border litigation where a Chinese defendant is sued, understanding the proper channels for serving process on such defendant within Chinese territory becomes crucial for cross-border commercial lawyers and legal teams specializing in cross-border dispute resolution.<\/p>\n
Pursuant to Chinese law, the service of foreign judicial documents may be accomplished through judicial assistance treaties, the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague Service Convention”), or diplomatic channels. The initial step is to ascertain whether a bilateral judicial assistance treaty is in force between China and the jurisdiction where the litigation is pending. Where such a treaty exists, it shall be applied on a priority basis. In cases where the forum state is a party to the Hague Service Convention and also has a judicial assistance treaty with China, the treaty provisions shall take precedence; any gaps shall be filled by the provisions of the Hague Service Convention. Where the forum state is a party to the Hague Service Convention but lacks a bilateral judicial assistance treaty with China, service shall be governed by the Hague Service Convention and the judicial interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court (\u201cSPC\u201d). Where the forum state is neither a party to the Hague Service Convention nor a signatory to a bilateral judicial assistance treaty with China, service shall be conducted through diplomatic channels. This article primarily elaborates on the service methods under the Hague Service Convention.<\/p>\n
For cross-border disputes falling under the Hague Service Convention, China has designated the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) as its Central Authority for the purposes of exercising its functions under the Convention, with the International Legal Cooperation Center (ILCC) under its umbrella responsible for handling the actual service of process. This article explains the service requirements under the Convention by reference to the relevant provisions of Chinese law and the HCCH practical information updated on 15 January 2026, with a view to providing practical guidance for legal practitioners navigating cross-border service in China.<\/p>\n
For the service of process in China under the Hague Service Convention, parties need to pay attention to the following core aspects:<\/p>\n
1. Application of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n First, it should be confirmed that both countries are contracting states to the Hague Service Convention. Second, it should be confirmed that there is no bilateral judicial assistance treaty on service between the two countries, otherwise the treaty should prevail.<\/p>\n For instance, Article 2 of the Treaty between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Singapore on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters<\/em> provides that the judicial assistance mutually rendered by the Contracting Parties in civil and commercial matters encompasses “service of judicial documents.” Article 3 stipulates that “judicial assistance shall be rendered through the Central Authorities designated or established by the respective Contracting Parties”, and appoints the MOJ as the Central Authority of China. Judicial documents shall be dispatched by the Supreme Court of Singapore to the MOJ of China, and subsequently transmitted by the SPC. Upon arrival in China, service shall be effected by the methods prescribed by Chinese law for “serving documents on parties in domestic litigation.” Where the Singaporean plaintiff requests a special method of service, such service shall be effected accordingly, unless the requested method contravenes Chinese domestic law.<\/p>\n Likewise, Article 2 of the Agreement between the People’s Republic of China and the French Republic on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters<\/em> stipulates that judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters includes the “transmission and service of judicial and extrajudicial documents.” Article 3 provides that “judicial assistance shall be provided through the Central Authorities designated or established by the Contracting Parties, unless otherwise stipulated in this Agreement.” Service of documents shall be requested by France’s Central Authority through a Letter of Request. China’s Central Authority shall determine the “most appropriate method” for serving judicial documents in accordance with the provisions of domestic law. Pursuant to the Implementation Rules for the Provisions on Handling Requests for Judicial Assistance in the Service of Judicial Documents and Taking of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Cases in Accordance with International Conventions and Bilateral Judicial Assistance Treaties (for Trial Implementation), the SPC shall receive the documents transmitted by the Central Authority and arrange for their transmission and service level by level to the people’s courts at various local levels.<\/p>\n 2. Official Online Channel<\/strong><\/p>\n The ILCC accepts service applications through its online portal, and the HCCH’s practical information notes that “the Chinese side prefers the online way of submission.” It is noticeable that pursuant to the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on the Ratification of the Accession to the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters<\/em>, China has entered a reservation against Article 10 of the Hague Service Convention (regarding postal channels). Accordingly, direct service upon a Chinese defendant within Chinese territory by means of postal mail is impermissible. Additionally, in accordance with Article 294 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China<\/em>, save for circumstances involving judicial assistance, no foreign organ or individual shall, without the authorization of the competent authority of the People’s Republic of China, serve documents or obtain evidence within the territory of the People’s Republic of China. Therefore, alternative channels (e.g., via email) for serving a Chinese defendant are similarly precluded. It follows that, in scenarios where the Hague Service Convention is applicable, effecting service through the ILCC constitutes the sole reliable official channel for service.<\/p>\n 3. Form, Documents and Translation<\/strong><\/p>\n Before a formal application is lodged, the corresponding documentation should be assembled. This includes the Hague Service Request Form (in English or French, official language of the Convention), the statement of claim or summons, and any ancillary court orders or powers of attorney. It should be noted that all foreign-language materials submitted must be translated into Simplified Chinese; failure to comply with this requirement is a prevalent deficiency leading to the rejection of applications in practice. Local courts across China typically hold a roster of designated translation providers. It is therefore advisable to engage a translation agency from the court’s approved roster and have the translated documents sealed with the agency’s official chop, thereby increasing the prospects of a successful request.<\/p>\n 4. Review and Service<\/strong><\/p>\n Upon receipt of a request, the ILCC shall conduct a preliminary examination to ascertain compliance with the requirements of the Hague Service Convention. Non-compliant requests shall be returned for rectification. Where the materials satisfy the prescribed conditions, the ILCC shall transmit them to the SPC. The SPC shall examine the materials to ensure their completeness, the absence of any grounds for refusal of assistance, and the accuracy of document titles and quantities. Materials that pass this examination shall then be cascaded down through the court system to the Intermediate People’s Court with jurisdiction over the domicile of the addressee. Following a parallel examination, the Intermediate People’s Court shall effect service. The proof of service shall be submitted by the adjudicating People’s Court to the MOJ through the SPC, which shall then remit it to the competent authority or judicial officer of the requesting state. This concludes the cross-border service procedure. Pursuant to the “Questions and Answers” section provided by the MOJ on the HCCH official website, the entire service procedure is expected to be completed within a timeframe of four to six months. Of course, the timeframe may differ considerably across localities, contingent upon the handling efficiency, caseload, and level of familiarity of the local Intermediate People’s Court. Consequently, it is typically recommended that local counsel\u200b monitor and track the progress of service throughout the court system.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 5. Mandatory Application and Consequences<\/strong><\/p>\n The application of the Hague Service Convention is mandatory in applicable scenarios. Illegal service may result in the relevant judgment or ruling being denied recognition and enforcement. Article 299 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates: “The People’s Court shall examine an application or request for the recognition and enforcement of a legally effective judgment or ruling rendered by a foreign court. Such examination shall be conducted in accordance with the international treaties concluded or acceded to by the People’s Republic of China, or in accordance with the principle of reciprocity. If the People’s Court deems that the judgment or ruling does not violate the basic principles of the laws of the People’s Republic of China and does not harm its national sovereignty, security, or social and public interests, it shall rule to recognize its legal effect; where enforcement is required, an order of enforcement shall be issued and enforced pursuant to the relevant provisions of this Law.”<\/p>\n Consequently, when an overseas plaintiff submits a legally effective foreign judgment to a Chinese court for recognition and enforcement, the Chinese court will examine the foreign judgment based on two principles: (1) the principle of reciprocity; and (2) whether it violates the basic principles of Chinese law or the national sovereignty, security, or social and public interests of the state. Both criteria must be satisfied concurrently. In the absence of a bilateral judicial mutual assistance treaty, the service process must be conducted in strict compliance with the Hague Service Convention. In the event of a violation of the Convention’s provisions, Chinese courts will disaffirm the validity of the foreign judgment.<\/p>\n For example, in the Reply of the Supreme People’s Court Regarding the Request for Instructions on the Application for Recognition (and Enforcement) of Judgment No. 20460\/07 of the Amtsgericht Offenburg of the Federal Republic of Germany<\/em>, the SPC stated:<\/p>\n “Both China and the Federal Republic of Germany are member states of the Hague Service Convention, and there is no bilateral judicial assistance treaty in civil and commercial matters between the two countries. Therefore, the Convention applies to matters of service. … (Pursuant to the Decision, China has excluded the application of service by mail). China does not recognize the method of service by mail of Judgment No. 20460\/07 by the Amtsgericht Offenburg upon Beijing Fukela Furniture Sales Co., Ltd. Therefore, this judgment has not yet taken legal effect against Beijing Fukela Furniture Sales Co., Ltd. … The conditions for the application for recognition and enforcement of this judgment are not yet satisfied. … Should the applicant persist in its application, the court shall rule to dismiss the application.”<\/em><\/p>\n This signifies that invalid overseas service will result in Chinese courts refusing to recognize and enforce foreign judgments, thereby enabling defendants within Chinese territory to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests.<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n The proper service of overseas documents is of great significance to the future recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and rulings, as well as to the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of defendants in China. It is our hope that this article will prove helpful to those who require guidance in this regard.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","class_list":["post-148688","hot_topics","type-hot_topics","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/hot_topics\/148688","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/hot_topics"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/hot_topics"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148688"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}