China Justice Observer


EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

Cross-border Online Case Filing: Latest Facilitation Measures for Foreign Parties

Sun, 04 Apr 2021
Categories: China Legal Trends



China’s Supreme Court’s Several Provisions on Providing Online Case-filing Services for Foreign Litigants (2021) provides an Internet platform for foreign parties to file cases with Chinese courts, and streamlines the case-filing procedures.

Nowadays, online case filing has been made available in many Chinese courts. But most case-filing platforms provide services only in the Chinese language. Before using such services, users are required to go through real-name authentication, which relies on China’s identity card system. Therefore, such online case-filing platforms are almost only useful for Chinese parties. If foreign parties need to file cases through the Internet, usually they need to hire a Chinese lawyer on their behalf.

On 3 Feb. 2021, to facilitate foreign parties to submit filing materials directly, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued the Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Providing Online Case-filing Services for Foreign Litigants (最高人民法院关于为跨境诉讼当事人提供网上立案服务的若干规定), which provides an Internet platform for foreign parties to file cases with Chinese courts and streamlines the case-filing procedures from the following aspects:

I. Case filing through the mobile app

The online case-filing platform operated by the SPC for foreign parties is called “China Mobile MiniCourt”, an applet embedded in WeChat (China’s largest mobile social media). Therefore, if you want to use China Mobile MiniCourt to file a case, you must install WeChat first.
And after that, a foreign party can, theoretically, file a case with a mobile phone.

See an earlier CJO post, for a step-by-step guide to accessing China's virtual court proceedings through the app ‘China Mobile Micro Court’.

II. Streamline of the identity verification

When filing a case online for the first time, Chinese courts need to verify the identity of the parties. According to the new rules, Chinese courts can verify the identity of the parties through the information retained in the identity verification platform of China’s National Immigration Administration. That is, for the parties who have entry-exit 
If the verification cannot be done by this method, Chinese courts can also conduct manual verification on the identity materials provided by the parties online. For the specific materials to be provided, please refer to our earlier post “Foreign Companies Prepare for China’s Civil Litigation: The To-Do List”. Although online verification does not require the parties to provide the paper originals to the court, the notarization, the authentication and other procedures are still needed.

III. Streamline of the power of attorney 

Under the new rules, foreign parties can apply to Chinese courts for “online video witness”, i.e., under the witness of the judge, the party (and his/her interpreter) and the lawyer online at the same time, the party may sign the power of attorney for entrusting the Chinese lawyer. If this method is adopted, there is no need for notarization, authentication and other cumbersome procedures.

IV. Actual operation

On the second day after the promulgation of the new rules, a Japanese party signed the power of attorney for entrusting Chinese lawyers through online video witness, thus completing the cross-border case filing with Fengxian Primary People’s Court of Shanghai Municipality. In addition, this platform also provides services to residents of Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, as well as mainland Chinese citizens living abroad. At present, courts in Beijing and Shanghai have already helped several overseas mainland Chinese citizens and Taiwan residents complete cross-border case filing.

V. Our observation and suggestion

According to the news disclosed so far, most of the parties using the cross-border case filing platform are natural persons who can speak Chinese. In the future, with the further improvement of the platform functions, we believe that the platform can provide convenience for more foreign parties.

At the same time, we have noticed that there are still some obstacles for foreign companies or institutions to use this platform. First of all, China’s entry-exit system only retains the information of natural persons, and therefore foreign companies/institutions still need to prepare materials and go through notarization and authentication procedures in the traditional way for identity verification, but no paper originals are required now. If foreign companies/institutions want to simplify the procedures for entrusting Chinese lawyers, they need to designate representatives to participate in video witness, and such representatives are, in principle, required to hold notarized and authenticated POAs, which in fact causes more troubles for the parties.

In view of the above problems and questions frequently raised by judges during the filing of foreign-related cases, we would advise that foreign institutions prepare paper materials in the traditional way, and hire Chinese lawyers for case filing with the court offline. Chinese lawyers can also use their own accounts to file cases online if their foreign clients are in a tight schedule.

Generally speaking, we believe that it will be more and more convenient for foreign parties to participate in litigation in China. However, to avoid technical, communication, and other problems in case filing, it is still highly necessary to hire Chinese lawyers.


Contributors: Chenyang Zhang 张辰扬

Save as PDF

You might also like

Decoding the Turning Point: A Closer Look at China’s Recognition of Japanese Bankruptcy

This follow-up article focuses on the Chinese Court's detailed review of the Shanghai International Corporation case in 2023, highlighting the significance of reciprocity in cross-border bankruptcy proceedings and underscoring China's evolving approach to recognizing foreign judgments (See In re Shanghai International Corporation (2021) Hu 03 Xie Wai Ren No.1).

SPC Interprets International Treaties & Practices in Chinese Courts

In December 2023, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) reaffirmed the supremacy of international treaties over domestic laws in foreign-related civil and commercial cases with its “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of International Treaties and International Practices”(关于审理涉外民商事案件适用国际条约和国际惯例若干问题的解释).

China’s Wenzhou Court Recognizes a Singapore Monetary Judgment

In 2022, a local Chinese court in Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, ruled to recognize and enforce a monetary judgment made by the Singapore State Courts, as highlighted in one of the typical cases related to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) recently released by China’s Supreme People’s Court (Shuang Lin Construction Pte. Ltd. v. Pan (2022) Zhe 03 Xie Wai Ren No.4).

Legal Crossroads: Canadian Court Denies Summary Judgment for Chinese Judgment Recognition When Faced with Parallel Proceedings

In 2022, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Canada refused to grant summary judgment to enforce a Chinese monetary judgment in the context of two parallel proceedings in Canada, indicating that the two proceedings should proceed together as there was factual and legal overlap, and triable issues involved defenses of natural justice and public policy (Qingdao Top Steel Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Fasteners & Fittings Inc. 2022 ONSC 279).

Chinese Civil Settlement Statements: Enforceable in Singapore?

In 2016, the Singapore High Court refused to grant summary judgment to enforce a Chinese civil settlement statement, citing uncertainty about the nature of such settlement statements, also known as ‘(civil) mediation judgments’ (Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu & Anor [2016] SGHC 137).

What’s New for China’s Rules on International Civil Jurisdiction? (B) - Pocket Guide to 2023 China’s Civil Procedure Law (3)

The Fifth Amendment (2023) to the PRC Civil Procedure Law has opened a new chapter on international civil jurisdiction rules in China, covering four types of jurisdictional grounds, parallel proceedings, lis alibi pendens, and forum non conveniens. This post focuses on how conflicts of jurisdiction are resolved through mechanisms such as lis alibi pendens, and forum non conveniens.