China Justice Observer


EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

Why Chinese Courts Promote E-Filing System?

Sun, 08 Aug 2021
Categories: Insights

Key takeaways:

• In 2002, Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court took the lead in launching an e-filing service. Since 2017, three Internet Courts have been established, with e-filing being an essential feature. To date, E-filing has gradually been widely adopted by local courts throughout the country.

• Marking that E-justice of Chinese courts is now stepping into the litigation proceedings, the E-filing system not only facilitates access to justice, but also enables coordination between courts and litigants.

• Imbalance of the use of judicial resources is one of E-filing’s drawbacks.


Chinese courts have been accelerating the promotion of e-filing in the past four years, which has become a fundamental pillar of China’s intelligent courts system.

China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) organized an academic seminar themed “Preventing and Resolving Major Risks in the Comprehensive Judicial System Reform” in 2020. At the seminar, there was a paper titled “On the Realization of Online Civil Case Filing” (论民事诉讼立案在线化的实现进路), discussing the e-filing system of Chinese courts.

The authors of the paper are Liao Huimin (廖惠敏), Judge of Xiamen Intermediate People’s Court and Gao Biqing (高碧青) and Xiao Anding (肖安定), Judges of Huli Primary People’s Court of Xiamen Municipality.

I. E-filing of Chinese courts

On 13 Jun. 2019, Zhou Qiang (周强), President of the SPC, required all local courts across the country to provide e-filing service to litigants by 2020 at a symposium attended by presidents of high people’s courts across the country. 

In fact, the attempt at e-filing began as early as 2002. In that year, Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court took the lead in launching an e-filing service. Since then, various local courts have followed its steps.

After 2017, Internet courts in Hangzhou, Beijing, and Guangzhou were established one after another. The major feature of Internet courts is to hear Internet-related cases online, so e-filing is naturally one of its essential features. Ever since then, e-filing began to be commonly adopted by the courts throughout the country, and the SPC has been constantly promulgating regulations related to e-filing.

II. Value of e-filing

1. E-filing means that the E-justice of Chinese courts is beginning to step into litigation proceedings.

The E-justice system, also known as the “Intelligent Courts” system, goes through three phases:

In Phase One, it emphasized statistics analysis by use of the case management system, which was aimed at providing data support for judicial decision-making;

In Phase Two, it emphasized information disclosure by use of three major court information disclosure platforms (China Judgments Online(, China Enforcement Information Online ( and China Judicial Process Information Online(, which aimed at providing the parties concerned with more judicial information; and

In Phase Three, it emphasized online courts development by use of three Internet courts and numerous online litigation platforms, aiming to enable the parties concerned to complete all proceedings online. The e-filing system is a part of the Phase Three development.

Related Posts:

How Chinese E-Justice works?

You Can View Almost All the Chinese Court Judgments Online for Free

Does Disclosure of Chinese Court Judgment Infringe Personal Privacy?

2. E-filing facilitates access to justice 

Measures on the Payment of Litigation Costs (诉讼费用交纳办法), adopted by China's courts since April 2007, has significantly reduced the cost of court proceedings to meet the litigants' demand for access to judicial justice. Since then, the number of lawsuits in China has grown by more than 10% a year. 

In order to further lower the threshold for parties to file lawsuits, Chinese courts have begun to implement the case filing system since 2015, which means that as long as the parties' application for filing lawsuits meets the formalities requirements, the court will accept the case unconditionally. This system has changed the previous practice of selectively accepting cases and resolving disputes to control the workload, but it also led to a sudden explosion of lawsuits.

The litigation explosion in China has also led to the lack of human resources in Chinese courts to deal with the parties' applications for case filing. Therefore, the courts began trying to provide the parties with online reservation service for case filing, which was further developed into contactless e-filing.

Related Posts:

Chinese Courts Facing Litigation Explosion 

Late-night Call from a Judge: How Chinese Courts Deal with Litigation Explosion

3. E-filing enables coordination between courts and litigants in the E-justice system

The parties can input the case details in accordance with the format required by the court when applying for case filing. These structured data can be easily reused by the court in subsequent proceedings, such as case review, adjudication, and execution. The court can also convert the key points summarized in the case adjudication into functions in the online system, and the parties can understand the judge's rationale while using these functions.

Structured data make it possible for courts to adjudicate cases automatically and in batches. In addition, since the parties understand the judge's rationale under the guidance of the online system, they can have a reasonable estimate of the possible judgment result, which can facilitate the two parties to reach a settlement.

III. Drawbacks of e-filing

1. Occupation of judicial resources by large institutions
With a large number of users, banks, property companies, and other companies may have a large number of disputes, even with a small rate of contract default. In order to control risks and reduce costs, such institutions usually use methods other than litigation to control the contract default rate. However, after the occurrence of the e-filing system, the threshold for filing lawsuits has been greatly reduced, so such institutions tend to resolve disputes through litigation. For example, in a local court, 17.3% of its civil lawsuits come from two banks, which undermines other parties’ access to judicial justice.

2. The cases will be led to the courts which took the lead in implementing e-filing

As different courts implement the e-filing to a different extent, in order to reduce court costs, some parties who need to litigate in different places will intentionally create connecting factors to file a lawsuit with the court with a better e-filing system, which, therefore, increases the workload of the court.

3. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism is weakened.

Because it is easier for the court to register a case, the parties are reluctant to resort to ADR. Moreover, many institutions for ADR prefer to refer the cases to courts in order to reduce their workload. For example, the number of cases has increased where many labor arbitration institutions ruled to dismiss the arbitration application, thus pushing labor disputes to the courts for settlement; traffic management departments are no longer enthusiastic about the mediation of minor traffic accident disputes, but let the parties resort to the court for dispute resolution instead.

IV. Authors’ advice

1. From e-filing to dispute resolution in batches

The cases related to banks and other major institutions are featured by proceeding in batches and uniform formats. Courts can design structured and mass case filing systems for these cases, which may automatically generate pleadings, transcripts, and even judgments, allowing a small number of judges to hear a large number of simple cases.

2. From e-filing to online mediation

The court can integrate the e-filing system with the online pre-litigation mediation platform. On the pre-litigation mediation platform, the litigation materials uploaded by the plaintiff may be immediately electronically served to the defendant, and meanwhile, the platform can provide the chance for mediation, so as to improve the efficiency of dispute resolution. Take the online diversified dispute-resolution platform in Zhejiang Province as an example. During its trial launch in Xihu District, Hangzhou Municipality from March 2017 to 29 Dec. 2018, there were 382,966 cases mediated on the platform. The number of online mediation cases gradually increased while the number of cases accepted by courts began to decrease. 


Photo by zhang kaiyv on Unsplash

Contributors: Guodong Du 杜国栋 , Meng Yu 余萌

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.