China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

China’s SPC Issues Foreign State Immunity Case Guidelines

Thu, 22 May 2025
Categories: China Legal Trends

On 26 Mar. 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released the “Notice on Procedural Matters for Civil Cases Involving Foreign State Immunity” (hereinafter the “Notice”, 关于涉外国国家豁免民事案件相关程序事项的通知), which provides unified guidance for Chinese courts in applying the Foreign State Immunity Law and adjudicating cases involving foreign state immunity.

The Foreign State Immunity Law, which took effect on 1 Jan. 2024, is an important legislative step reflecting China’s adaptation to the evolving diplomatic landscape. The Law signifies China’s shift from absolute immunity to restrictive immunity with respect to foreign state immunity.

The Notice outlines eight procedural provisions addressing key aspects of foreign state immunity, such as case acceptance, centralized jurisdiction, service of process, review of jurisdictional immunity claims, and the acquisition of certification documents from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Chinese courts will adopt a centralized jurisdiction mechanism for these major and novel types of foreign-related civil cases involving foreign state immunity. Intermediate people’s courts with jurisdiction over foreign-related civil and commercial cases in the provincial capital cities will be designated to handle such cases.

At the acceptance stage, if the plaintiff names a foreign state as either a defendant or a third party, they must specify the legal basis and applicable exceptions in the complaint. Courts are obligated to provide clarifications, and if the plaintiff fails to provide the required basis, the case will not be accepted.

Regarding procedural reviews, courts are required to examine ex officio whether the immunity claim of the foreign state concerned is valid. A foreign state’s participation in jurisdictional challenge proceedings does not constitute consent to jurisdiction.

 

 

Photo by Dominic Kurniawan Suryaputra on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

You might also like

Guangdong High Court Highlights Landmark Mainland-Hong Kong Bankruptcy Ruling

Among 10 typical cases released by the Guangdong High People's Court to advance legal alignment in the Greater Bay Area, a landmark ruling (Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation) stands out for securing Hong Kong judicial recognition for a bankruptcy administrator appointed by a mainland court outside designated pilot regions.

China Publishes First Typical Cases in Sports Arbitration

China Commission of Arbitration for Sports (CCAS) has released its first set of six typical cases, establishing a precedent, among others, that sports agency contract disputes fall under specialized sports arbitration rather than general commercial arbitration.

China Designates Beijing Court for ICSID Arbitral Awards

China has officially designated the Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court to handle the recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards, filling a long-standing procedural gap and advancing its restrictive immunity framework.

PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal, Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments

Recent Australian case law clarifies that the “double interest” mechanism in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) monetary judgments functions as a compensatory post-judgment interest framework rather than an unenforceable penalty. This consolidates Australia’s position as a highly attractive and creditor-friendly forum for enforcing Chinese judgments. See Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58 (6 February 2024), Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597 (16 September 2025)