Foreign Nationals Before Chinese Courts After the 2023 Civil Procedure Law Amendment

Delta Law Expat Services Desk　｜　Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China（《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》）, fifth revision adopted 2023-09-01, in force from 2024-01-01, Part Four, arts. 270–305

1. The document at a glance

2. Which court, and on what basis

Jurisdiction is the first thing the amendment enlarged, and it did so from both ends: more connecting factors, and more ways of consenting.

Two features. The opening carve-out — 「除身份关系以外」 — means the six connecting factors do not govern status disputes such as divorce or parentage. And paragraph 2 is open-textured: an "other appropriate connection" is not defined, so the article's reach is not exhausted by the list.

Article 277 removes, for foreign-related disputes, the requirement of an actual connection to the chosen place that applies domestically. Article 278 is the provision most likely to catch an unrepresented individual: filing a defence on the merits, or counterclaiming, without first objecting to jurisdiction settles the question. It is not framed as a presumption open to rebuttal later.

Article 279 places three categories under exclusive jurisdiction — disputes over the formation, dissolution, liquidation or resolutions of an entity established in China; disputes over the validity of intellectual property rights examined and granted in China; and disputes arising from performance in China of Sino-foreign equity or contractual joint venture contracts, or contracts for joint exploration and exploitation of natural resources. An agreement cannot displace those.

Which level of court hears the case is set separately.

For an individual, the practical reading of Article 1 is that an ordinary foreign-related dispute starts at the basic people's court, not at a specialised or higher one. Article 7 matters to a different audience again: cases involving Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan are handled with reference to these Provisions, which is a referential application rather than direct application.

3. Service: the bottleneck, reopened

Item (9) is the substantive change. Electronic service is now available on its own terms — receipt capable of confirmation, and no prohibition in the responding party's State — without needing the party's consent, which item (10) separately covers. Two of the omitted items also matter to individuals: item (5) allows service on a wholly-owned enterprise, representative office, branch or an authorised business representative that the person has established in China; and items (6) and (7) allow service through a Chinese entity where the person to be served is its legal representative or principal officer in the circumstances described.

The consequence runs both ways. A foreign national with a Chinese subsidiary, a representative office or a Chinese email address in regular use is materially easier to serve than before 2024, and public announcement — once the common endpoint — is now the residual method. Whether a given method is available turns on the law of the State where the person is located, as applied by the court seised.

Evidence located abroad is dealt with in Article 284, which permits collection through treaty methods or diplomatic means and, where the law of the State where the evidence is located does not prohibit it, adds three further methods — including obtaining evidence through instant messaging tools where both parties agree. The formal requirements a foreign document must satisfy are a separate question (see Further reading).

4. When the same dispute is already running abroad

Article 280 confirms that a Chinese court with jurisdiction may accept a case although one party has sued abroad, and allows it to decline where the parties have made an exclusive choice of a foreign court that does not offend exclusive jurisdiction or Chinese sovereignty, security or public interest. Article 281 then allows the Chinese proceedings to be stayed on written application where the foreign court was seised first, subject to two exceptions, and to be resumed where the foreign court fails to take necessary steps or to conclude within a reasonable period. Article 282 supplies the forum non conveniens test.

Three features carry weight. The five conditions are cumulative, so failure of any one defeats the application. The article is triggered only by a defendant's jurisdictional objection, not on the court's own motion. And the final paragraph provides a return path, which means a dismissal on this ground is not the end of the matter if the foreign court does not take it up.

5. Foreign judgments, and what the amendment did not change

Article 298 allows a party to apply directly to a competent intermediate people's court for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment, or the foreign court to make the request under a treaty or on the basis of reciprocity. Article 299 sets the standard for recognition. Article 300 then states the grounds of refusal.

Article 301 completes ground (1) with a defined test: the foreign court is treated as having had no jurisdiction where it had none under its own law, or had jurisdiction but the dispute had no appropriate connection with it; where it breached Chinese exclusive jurisdiction; or where it breached an exclusive choice-of-court agreement. Article 303 gives a party ten days from service of the ruling to apply to the next higher court for reconsideration.

6. Who runs into this, and how it is used

For an individual foreign national in China these provisions are usually met in one of four settings: an employment or lease dispute where the counterparty is local and the individual is not; a family or succession matter spanning more than one place; an investment or shareholder dispute touching an entity established in China; and an attempt to have a foreign judgment take effect here.