Our Expert in China
Last updated: 14 June 2026 (reflects 2023 CPL Art 298 practice and 2024–2026 case developments)
Understanding how to enforce a foreign court judgment in China is one of the most consequential challenges facing cross-border creditors in 2026. The 2023 amendment to the PRC Civil Procedure Law, specifically CPL Article 298, reshaped the statutory framework for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in China, replacing the previously narrow and frequently criticised regime with a more structured, albeit still rigorous, procedure. This guide provides in-house counsel, external advisers and credit-control executives with a practical, step-by-step playbook covering the three available legal routes (treaty, reciprocity and direct CPL Article 298 application), the exact documents required, realistic timelines by province, and the critical risks, from public policy objections to default-judgment scrutiny, that can derail an otherwise strong application.
Yes, foreign civil and commercial judgments can be enforced in Mainland China. Since 1 January 2024, when the amended CPL took full effect, applicants file for recognition and enforcement at the competent Intermediate People’s Court under CPL Article 298. The court will examine the application under one of three legal bases: (1) a bilateral or multilateral treaty between China and the rendering state; (2) the reciprocity principle, where Chinese judgments have previously been recognised by the foreign state’s courts; or (3) the conditions set out directly in CPL Article 298 itself.
Decision tree, best first step for creditors: Determine whether a bilateral treaty on judicial assistance in civil matters exists between China and the judgment-rendering state. If yes, follow the treaty route. If no treaty exists, assess whether there is established reciprocity (i.e., the foreign state’s courts have previously recognised a Chinese judgment). If reciprocity evidence is available, present it alongside the application. In all cases, file the application under CPL Article 298 at the Intermediate People’s Court where the respondent is domiciled or where enforceable assets are located.
CPL Article 298, as promulgated by the National People’s Congress in September 2023 and effective from 1 January 2024, provides the statutory gateway for all applications to recognise and enforce foreign court judgments in China. The article stipulates that a party may apply to a competent Intermediate People’s Court for recognition and enforcement of a legally effective judgment or ruling made by a foreign court, provided that the matter falls within the scope of civil and commercial disputes and the judgment does not violate the basic principles of PRC law, state sovereignty, security, or the public interest.
The scope covers monetary judgments in contract disputes, tort claims, and most commercial matters. Criminal judgments, administrative rulings, and judgments involving family status (such as divorce decrees that determine personal capacity) are either excluded or subject to separate procedural rules. Notably, CPL Article 298 now codifies conditions under which recognition may be refused, including lack of jurisdiction by the foreign court under Chinese conflict-of-law standards, failure to properly serve the defendant, and fraud in obtaining the judgment.
China has concluded bilateral treaties on judicial assistance in civil matters with over 30 countries, although only a subset of these treaties expressly cover the recognition and enforcement of court judgments (as distinct from arbitral awards or service of process). Countries with bilateral treaties that include judgment-recognition provisions include France, Italy, Spain, Russia, and several Central Asian and Eastern European states. The Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters between the Mainland and Hong Kong SAR (effective 29 January 2024) creates a separate, streamlined pathway for Hong Kong judgments. Similar arrangements exist for Macao and, in more limited form, for Taiwan.
Where a bilateral treaty exists and expressly covers the judgment type in question, it operates as the primary legal basis and typically narrows the grounds on which recognition may be refused. The treaty route generally offers higher predictability and faster processing.
The reciprocity principle in China has evolved significantly since 2022. Under SPC guidance, Chinese courts now apply a broader concept of reciprocity, so-called “presumptive reciprocity”, meaning that reciprocity may be established not only where a foreign court has previously recognised a Chinese judgment, but also where the law of the foreign state does not prohibit the recognition of Chinese judgments. This expansion was a key development endorsed by the SPC and reflected in CPL Article 298’s framework. Countries whose judgments have been recognised on reciprocity grounds in recent years include the United States, Singapore, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Australia, and Germany, according to published case lists.
Choosing the correct enforcement route is a critical first step. The following comparison table summarises the three available pathways under CPL Article 298 for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in China.
| Feature | Treaty route | Reciprocity route | CPL Article 298 direct application |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal basis | Bilateral or multilateral treaty (binding international obligation) | Domestic judicial practice; evidence that foreign courts have recognised or would recognise Chinese judgments | Statutory provision (CPL Art 298 conditions applied directly by the court) |
| Typical speed | 3–9 months (faster where treaty procedures are well-established) | 6–12 months (variable, depends on strength of reciprocity evidence) | 6–18 months (standard civil procedure timelines; may involve SPC reporting) |
| Evidence burden on applicant | Treaty text plus authenticated judgment and supporting documents | Evidence of reciprocity (foreign case law, expert opinions, government records) plus judgment documents | Standard judicial review; applicant must show the foreign judgment is legally effective, due process was observed, and no public policy conflict exists |
| Likelihood of success | High, if the treaty expressly covers the judgment type | Moderate to high, case-by-case assessment; improving trend since 2022 | Promising where the judgment meets all statutory conditions; outcome depends on court’s review |
| Example jurisdictions | France, Italy, Russia, Spain; Hong Kong SAR (special arrangement) | United States, United Kingdom, Singapore, South Korea, Australia, Germany | General route for states without a treaty or where reciprocity evidence is limited |
If a bilateral treaty on judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters exists between China and the rendering state, and the treaty’s scope covers judgment recognition (not merely service of process or evidence-taking), the treaty route should be the primary strategy. This route narrows the permissible grounds for refusal and creates a binding obligation on the Chinese court to recognise the judgment if the treaty conditions are met. Practitioners should verify the treaty text carefully, as some treaties exclude certain judgment categories (e.g., intellectual property or competition law rulings).
The reciprocity principle in China has become increasingly viable since SPC guidance broadened the standard. If the rendering state’s courts have previously recognised a Chinese judgment, or if the law of that state does not prohibit recognition of Chinese judgments, an applicant can present this evidence alongside the CPL Article 298 application. Applicants should gather foreign case law, expert legal opinions from the rendering state, and any published academic or governmental materials confirming reciprocity. Industry observers expect the reciprocity route to continue expanding, particularly for common-law jurisdictions where enforcement of foreign monetary judgments is generally available.
Where no treaty exists and reciprocity evidence is thin, the applicant must rely on the conditions in CPL Article 298 itself. The court will independently assess whether the foreign court had proper jurisdiction, whether due process was observed, whether the judgment is final and legally effective, and whether enforcement would violate PRC public policy. This route requires meticulous preparation of supporting documents and is the most procedurally intensive of the three options.
The following procedural steps outline the practical filing process for applicants seeking to enforce a foreign court judgment in China under CPL Article 298. This section addresses the documents required for recognition in China, jurisdictional requirements, service mechanics, and common respondent defences.
Applications for recognition and enforcement must be filed at the Intermediate People’s Court with jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is determined by reference to:
Province-level practice note: Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong Intermediate People’s Courts have handled the majority of recognition applications in recent years. Beijing courts tend to apply stricter documentary requirements, particularly for notarisation and legalisation. Shanghai courts have demonstrated a more commercially oriented approach. Guangdong courts, given the proximity to Hong Kong and high volumes of cross-border trade, have developed specific internal guidance for processing applications under the Mainland–Hong Kong arrangement. Practitioners should consult local procedural rules and, where possible, engage local counsel familiar with the specific Intermediate People’s Court’s practice.
The following table lists the core documents required for recognition in China. Items marked “mandatory” must be included in every application; items marked “typically required” are demanded by most courts but may vary by jurisdiction.
| # | Document | Status | Certification / authentication required |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Application for recognition and enforcement (petition) | Mandatory | Signed by applicant or authorised representative; Chinese translation required |
| 2 | Certified copy of the foreign judgment (or original) | Mandatory | Court-certified; notarised and legalised (or apostilled where Hague Apostille Convention applies) |
| 3 | Certificate of legal effectiveness (finality certificate) | Mandatory | Issued by the rendering court confirming the judgment is final and enforceable; notarised and legalised |
| 4 | Certified Chinese translation of the judgment | Mandatory | Translated by a PRC-qualified translation agency; some courts require the translation to be notarised |
| 5 | Proof of service on the respondent in the original proceedings | Mandatory | Court records, affidavits of service, or return receipts; notarised and legalised |
| 6 | Power of attorney (if filed through counsel) | Mandatory | Notarised at a PRC embassy/consulate or notarised in the home jurisdiction and legalised; must be in Chinese or accompanied by a certified translation |
| 7 | Applicant identity documents (passport, certificate of incorporation, or business licence) | Mandatory | Notarised copies; corporate applicants must provide proof of authorised signatory |
| 8 | Evidence of the respondent’s domicile or asset location in China | Mandatory | Company registration records, property records, bank account details (where available) |
| 9 | Evidence of reciprocity (if relying on reciprocity route) | Typically required | Foreign court decisions, expert legal opinions, academic publications; translated and notarised |
| 10 | Copy of the bilateral treaty (if relying on treaty route) | Typically required | Official government publication or gazette; Chinese text or certified translation |
| 11 | Underlying contract or agreement giving rise to the dispute | Typically required | Certified copy with Chinese translation |
| 12 | Calculation of interest, costs and enforcement amounts | Typically required | Detailed breakdown with supporting evidence; Chinese translation |
| 13 | Evidence that the judgment has not been satisfied | Typically required | Affidavit or statutory declaration confirming outstanding balance |
| 14 | Pre-existing enforcement attempts in other jurisdictions (if any) | Optional but advisable | Court records or certificates from other jurisdictions |
Once the application pack is assembled, the filing process follows these numbered steps:
Common defences raised by respondents in recognition proceedings include:
Beyond the checklist table above, applicants should understand the specific authentication, translation and cost requirements for each category of document. Proper preparation of the documents required for recognition in China is frequently the difference between a smooth acceptance and months of supplementation delays.
Chinese Intermediate People’s Courts generally accept certified copies of foreign judgments rather than originals, provided the copies are certified by the rendering court’s clerk or registrar. However, some courts, particularly in Beijing, may request sight of the original judgment at the hearing stage. Applicants should retain the original and bring it to the hearing as a precaution.
All documents submitted in a language other than Chinese must be accompanied by a certified Chinese translation. The translation must be performed by a PRC-registered translation agency (翻译公司) that holds a business licence for translation services. Some courts also require that the translation itself be notarised by a Chinese notary public. Translation costs vary by document length and complexity; industry observers estimate RMB 200–400 per page for standard legal documents, with complex financial judgments commanding higher rates.
| Source jurisdiction type | Notarisation requirement | Legalisation / authentication requirement | Estimated processing time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hague Apostille Convention member (e.g., UK, Australia, most EU states) | Notarised by a notary public in the source jurisdiction | Apostille issued by the competent authority in the source jurisdiction; China acceded to the Hague Apostille Convention effective November 2023 | 2–4 weeks |
| Non-Hague Convention state (e.g., certain Middle Eastern or African states) | Notarised by a notary public in the source jurisdiction | Legalised by the PRC embassy or consulate in the source jurisdiction (consular legalisation) | 4–8 weeks |
| United States (federal and state courts) | Notarised by a US notary public; some courts require county clerk certification | Apostille (Hague Convention applies); previously required consular legalisation but apostille now accepted following China’s accession | 2–4 weeks |
| Hong Kong SAR | Notarised by a China-Appointed Attesting Officer in Hong Kong | Specific requirements under the Mainland–Hong Kong Arrangement; no apostille or consular legalisation required | 1–3 weeks |
Cost estimates: Notarisation fees range from USD 50–300 per document depending on the jurisdiction. Apostille fees are typically USD 10–50 per document. Consular legalisation at a PRC embassy can cost USD 20–50 per document but may take significantly longer. Total document preparation costs (authentication, translation and legalisation) for a typical application pack commonly range from USD 3,000 to USD 8,000.
One of the most common questions from creditors concerns how long recognition and enforcement takes in China. The answer depends on the route used, the complexity of the application, provincial court workload, and whether the respondent contests the application.
| Stage | Treaty route | Reciprocity route | CPL Article 298 direct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Document preparation and authentication | 4–8 weeks | 4–8 weeks | 4–8 weeks |
| Court acceptance and case registration | 1–2 weeks | 1–2 weeks | 1–4 weeks |
| Service on respondent | 2–8 weeks | 2–8 weeks (up to 12 weeks if service by public notice) | 2–12 weeks |
| Court examination and hearing | 2–4 months | 3–6 months | 4–9 months |
| SPC reporting (if required) | N/A (usually not required) | 1–3 months (courts may report to the SPC before refusing recognition) | 1–3 months (if novel issues arise) |
| Total estimated time to recognition ruling | 3–9 months | 6–12 months | 6–18 months |
Provincial variance: Shanghai and Shenzhen courts tend to process recognition applications faster than Beijing courts, partly due to higher caseloads and partly due to the commercial orientation of these jurisdictions. Guangdong courts processing applications under the Mainland–Hong Kong Arrangement have developed streamlined internal procedures that can reduce overall timelines.
Once the Intermediate People’s Court issues a recognition-and-enforcement ruling, the applicant must apply for execution (执行). The execution application is filed at the court that issued the ruling or, if assets are located in a different jurisdiction, at the Intermediate People’s Court where the assets are situated. Execution measures include freezing and seizing bank accounts, attaching real property, seizing movable assets, garnishing receivables, and restricting the debtor’s high-consumption activities.
Court filing fees for recognition applications are calculated based on the amount in dispute, following the standard PRC court fee schedule. For a judgment of RMB 10 million (approximately USD 1.4 million), the court fee would typically be in the range of RMB 50,000–80,000. Legal fees for PRC counsel vary by firm and complexity but commonly range from RMB 100,000 to RMB 500,000 for a contested recognition proceeding.
Creditors concerned about asset dissipation should consider applying for pre-judgment preservation (property preservation) simultaneously with or prior to the recognition application. Under CPL Article 104, the court may freeze the respondent’s bank accounts, attach real property or restrain the transfer of assets on an urgent basis. Preservation orders can be obtained within 48 hours in certain courts. This is particularly advisable where the respondent has a history of concealing or transferring assets, or where the judgment amount is substantial. For sector-specific guidance, including preservation strategies for maritime claims, practitioners may refer to the China Maritime Code, 2026 changes guidance on cross-border enforcement measures.
Default judgments enforcement in China remains one of the most scrutinised areas of practice. Chinese courts do not automatically refuse recognition of a default judgment from a foreign court; however, they apply heightened scrutiny to whether the respondent was properly served and given a meaningful opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The court will examine whether service complied with the law of the rendering state, whether the method of service was consistent with any applicable treaty or convention (such as the Hague Service Convention), and whether the respondent had actual notice of the proceedings.
Practical tip: Applicants seeking to enforce a default judgment should prepare comprehensive evidence of service, including sworn affidavits, tracking records, court-stamped service certificates, and any subsequent communications with the respondent that demonstrate awareness of the proceedings. Where service was effected by substituted means (e.g., publication), additional evidence explaining why personal service was not possible is essential.
The public policy exception in China (社会公共利益) is the broadest ground on which a Chinese court may refuse recognition. In practice, courts have applied this exception narrowly, but it remains a meaningful risk in cases involving:
Chinese courts assess whether the rendering court had proper jurisdiction under Chinese conflict-of-law standards, not merely under the law of the rendering state. This means a judgment from a court that had jurisdiction under its own domestic rules may still be refused if the Chinese court determines there was no sufficient jurisdictional connection under PRC standards. Common connections accepted include: the defendant’s domicile in the rendering state, the defendant’s voluntary submission to that court’s jurisdiction, a valid choice-of-court clause, and the location of the relevant property or contract performance in the rendering state.
A Chinese court may also partially enforce a foreign judgment, for example, recognising monetary damages while declining to enforce injunctive or declaratory relief that is not compatible with PRC enforcement mechanisms. Partial recognition has been granted in several reported cases where the foreign judgment included both enforceable monetary components and non-monetary orders.
The following table summarises representative cases reflecting how to enforce a foreign court judgment in China under the evolving CPL Article 298 framework. Case details are drawn from published case compilations and court records.
| Rendering jurisdiction | Year recognised | Route used | Outcome | Key issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States (California) | 2024 | Reciprocity | Recognised and enforced | Court accepted reciprocity based on prior US recognition of Chinese judgments; compensatory damages enforced, punitive damages refused |
| Singapore | 2024 | Reciprocity | Recognised and enforced | Court found reciprocity established; straightforward monetary judgment in commercial contract dispute |
| England (High Court) | 2025 | Reciprocity / CPL Art 298 | Recognised and enforced | First reported recognition of an English judgment; court relied on broadened reciprocity standard |
| South Korea | 2024 | Reciprocity | Recognised and enforced | Reciprocity established; clean judgment with proper service and clear monetary relief |
| France | 2023 | Bilateral treaty | Recognised and enforced | Treaty route applied under the Sino-French Treaty on Judicial Assistance; well-established pathway |
| Germany | 2024 | Reciprocity | Recognised and enforced | Court applied presumptive reciprocity; judgment arose from a supply contract dispute |
Use the following ten-step checklist when preparing to enforce a foreign court judgment in China:
This article was produced by Global Law Experts. For specialist advice on this topic, contact Jingzhan Wong at Tianjin Bozhuan Law Firm, a member of the Global Law Experts network.
The following resources support the practical application of the steps described in this guide:
Enforcing a foreign court judgment in China requires careful route selection, meticulous document preparation, and an understanding of the procedural expectations of Mainland Intermediate People’s Courts. The 2023 CPL Article 298 framework, combined with the expanding reciprocity standard, has significantly improved the prospects for cross-border creditors. Early engagement of experienced PRC counsel, thorough asset identification, and proactive use of preservation measures remain the strongest predictors of a successful outcome.
posted 21 minutes ago
posted 1 hour ago
posted 2 hours ago
posted 2 hours ago
posted 3 hours ago
posted 4 hours ago
posted 4 hours ago
posted 4 hours ago
posted 5 hours ago
posted 5 hours ago
posted 6 hours ago
Find the right Legal Expert for your business
Sign up for the latest legal briefings and news within Global Law Experts’ community, as well as a whole host of features, editorial and conference updates direct to your email inbox.
Naturally you can unsubscribe at any time.
Global Law Experts is dedicated to providing exceptional legal services to clients around the world. With a vast network of highly skilled and experienced lawyers, we are committed to delivering innovative and tailored solutions to meet the diverse needs of our clients in various jurisdictions.
Global Law Experts is dedicated to providing exceptional legal services to clients around the world. With a vast network of highly skilled and experienced lawyers, we are committed to delivering innovative and tailored solutions to meet the diverse needs of our clients in various jurisdictions.
Send welcome message
