Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments in Vietnam

The principal source of authority is the Civil Procedure Code 2015 (CPC), specifically Part Seven on recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments and decisions (Articles 423-463 in the consolidated numbering). Article 423 sets out the categories of foreign judgments that are eligible for recognition: civil and commercial judgments, marriage-and-family judgments, labour judgments, and certain criminal judgments to the extent they cover civil-damages issues.

Recognition under Vietnamese law follows two parallel tracks. The first is the bilateral treaty track: where Vietnam has a judicial-assistance treaty with the rendering country, the treaty governs. The second is the reciprocity track: where no treaty exists, Vietnamese courts may recognise the judgment on the basis of reciprocity — that is, on evidence that the rendering country would, in equivalent circumstances, recognise a Vietnamese judgment.

Recognition does not retry the merits. Like arbitral-award recognition, the Vietnamese court reviews the application against the refusal grounds in Article 439 of the CPC and either recognises or refuses. Once recognised, the foreign judgment has the same enforceability as a domestic Vietnamese judgment.

Vietnam has bilateral judicial-assistance treaties with approximately 20 countries. The list is dominated by former-socialist and Eastern European jurisdictions reflecting the historic pattern of Vietnamese diplomatic relationships: Russia, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Belarus, Ukraine, Cuba, Mongolia, North Korea, Kazakhstan, Lao PDR, Cambodia, China (a limited civil-and-commercial treaty), France (limited), Algeria, and a handful of others. The treaties vary in scope; some cover all civil and commercial judgments, others are narrower.

Notably absent from the treaty list: the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Germany, the Netherlands, and most other common-destination jurisdictions for cross-border commercial litigation. Judgments from these countries depend on the reciprocity track.

The reciprocity test under Article 423(3) requires the applicant to demonstrate that the rendering jurisdiction would recognise a Vietnamese judgment in equivalent circumstances. In practice, this is a fact-and-law question: applicants typically file a legal opinion from foreign counsel, supplemented by case authority where it exists, addressing the rendering country's recognition framework. Vietnamese courts have applied the reciprocity test inconsistently — some courts accept well-reasoned reciprocity submissions, others apply the test conservatively. Recent jurisprudence has trended slightly more receptive, but the outcome remains uncertain enough that the reciprocity track should be treated as a meaningful litigation risk.

Resolution 03/2012 of the Council of Judges and subsequent guidance from the Supreme People's Court provide some structure for the reciprocity inquiry, but the assessment remains fact-specific and judge-specific. A precedent of Vietnamese-judgment recognition in the rendering jurisdiction is the strongest evidence; in its absence, a careful comparative-law analysis is the next-best route.

Filing. The application is filed with the competent Provincial People's Court — typically the court of the respondent's residence in Vietnam, or the location of the respondent's assets. Article 432 of the CPC sets out the documentary requirements.

Required documents. The application must include: the original or certified copy of the foreign judgment; certified Vietnamese translation of the judgment; evidence that the judgment is final and enforceable in the rendering jurisdiction (typically a certificate from the rendering court); evidence of due service on the respondent; and the application itself, addressing the relevant treaty or reciprocity basis and responding pre-emptively to plausible Article 439 challenges. All foreign documents must be apostilled or consular-legalised — Vietnam acceded to the Apostille Convention in 2024, simplifying this step for documents from Apostille parties.

Time limit. Article 432 imposes a three-year limitation period running from the date the foreign judgment becomes enforceable in the rendering jurisdiction. This is shorter than many practitioners expect, and it is strictly enforced. Out-of-time applications can be entertained only on a showing of force majeure or comparable obstacle.

Hearing. The Provincial People's Court schedules a hearing typically four to six months after filing. The respondent has the opportunity to oppose recognition by raising Article 439 grounds. The hearing is generally focused on the refusal grounds rather than the merits — but Vietnamese courts engage more substantively with the underlying judgment than is typical for arbitral-award recognition.

Decision and appeal. The court grants or refuses recognition. Either party can appeal to the High People's Court within 15 days. From filing to a final, non-appealable order, the realistic timeline is 9-18 months for straightforward cases and longer where the reciprocity question is contested.

Article 439 of the CPC sets out the exhaustive grounds on which a Vietnamese court may refuse to recognise a foreign judgment. The grounds parallel — but are not identical to — the New York Convention's Article V grounds for arbitral awards.

Procedural grounds: the foreign judgment is not yet final or enforceable in the rendering jurisdiction; the respondent was not properly summoned or was denied a reasonable opportunity to present a defence; the rendering court lacked jurisdiction under either the foreign jurisdiction's rules or the rules Vietnamese courts apply to test foreign jurisdiction; the matter is one over which Vietnamese courts assert exclusive jurisdiction (notably real-property matters where the property is in Vietnam, and certain marriage-and-family matters); a Vietnamese court has already issued a final judgment on the same matter, or a Vietnamese-court proceeding on the same matter is pending.

Substantive grounds: recognition would be contrary to the basic principles of Vietnamese law — the public-policy ground. Like its arbitral-award counterpart, this is a narrow ground reserved for fundamental violations rather than mere conflicts with Vietnamese substantive law. Vietnamese courts have applied it sparingly in the recognition context.

Reciprocity-track grounds: where no treaty applies, the absence of a sufficient showing of reciprocity is itself a refusal ground. The applicant bears the burden; a perfunctory submission will not suffice.

The most common bases for refusal in my experience: defective service or summons (often where the respondent participated in the foreign proceeding only marginally or not at all); inadequate reciprocity showing for non-treaty judgments; and exclusive-jurisdiction conflicts (especially real-property judgments). The pure public-policy ground is invoked frequently but rarely succeeds when the application is properly briefed.

The most important strategic point for foreign-firm partners drafting dispute clauses: arbitration is dramatically easier to enforce in Vietnam than court litigation. The reasons:

Coverage. The New York Convention captures awards from over 170 contracting states. The bilateral-treaty list for judgments captures roughly 20, with the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Singapore, and other major commercial jurisdictions absent. For most cross-border commercial relationships involving Vietnamese counterparties, arbitration is the only path to a clearly enforceable outcome.

Refusal-ground sophistication. Vietnamese courts have developed substantial experience with Article V of the New York Convention and apply it broadly in line with international standards. Article 439 jurisprudence on foreign judgments is thinner and more variable; the reciprocity inquiry in particular remains uncertain.

Timeline. Arbitral-award recognition typically resolves in 6-12 months; foreign-judgment recognition typically takes 9-18 months and longer where reciprocity is contested.

Cost. Court-judgment recognition often requires a substantive reciprocity-law submission and additional legalisation work, increasing application cost. Arbitral-award applications are more standardised and cheaper to assemble.

Where foreign-firm clients have already obtained a court judgment and Vietnamese assets are the realistic enforcement target, recognition is still worth pursuing — but plan the timeline and cost accordingly. Where the dispute is still in the structuring phase and the contract has not yet been signed, the right answer is almost always to arbitrate rather than litigate.

Early jurisdictional assessment. Before pursuing foreign-judgment enforcement in Vietnam, assess: whether a treaty applies; if not, the strength of the reciprocity case; whether the time limit is intact; whether any Article 439 ground is plausible; and whether the respondent has identifiable Vietnamese assets sufficient to justify the cost. A two-week feasibility memorandum at the front end can save significant downstream cost.

Asset preservation. Article 429 of the CPC permits applications for interim asset-preservation measures during the recognition proceeding. Where there is credible evidence of dissipation risk, apply early. Vietnamese courts have granted these measures in well-supported cases, and the leverage they create can drive settlement.

Translation and legalisation. The judgment, the certificate of finality, evidence of service, and any supporting submissions must be translated by sworn translators specialising in legal documents and apostilled (or consular-legalised for non-Apostille parties). Plan four to six weeks for the documentary chain in straightforward cases; longer for complex multi-document submissions.

Reciprocity submission. For non-treaty judgments, the reciprocity submission is often the decisive document. Engage foreign counsel from the rendering jurisdiction to provide a focused legal opinion addressing how that jurisdiction would handle a hypothetical Vietnamese judgment in equivalent circumstances. Where prior cases of Vietnamese-judgment recognition exist, cite them. Where they do not, build the case from the rendering jurisdiction's general framework for foreign-judgment recognition.

Coordination with foreign counsel. Recognition applications depend on documentation that originates abroad — the judgment itself, certificates of finality, evidence of service, foreign-law expert opinions. Foreign counsel needs to assemble these in a form that meets Vietnamese evidentiary standards. This is not difficult but requires explicit coordination from day one.

Once a recognition order issues and any appeal period has expired, the foreign judgment has the same status as a Vietnamese court judgment. Enforcement proceeds through the Bureau of Civil Judgment Enforcement under the Law on Enforcement of Civil Judgments.

Asset identification. Identify and attach the respondent's Vietnamese assets: bank accounts (the Bureau can issue freezing orders to Vietnamese banks), real estate (attached and subject to forced sale), shares in Vietnamese companies, receivables. For respondents who maintain Vietnamese operating entities, equity interests and accounts receivable are often the most productive targets.

Voluntary payment. As with arbitral-award recognition, voluntary payment is common once recognition issues. Many respondents who have litigated recognition pay rather than face attachment of operating assets. Where voluntary payment is not forthcoming, the Bureau is generally responsive to clear documentation and follow-up — though the pace is slower than enforcement in many Western jurisdictions.

Cross-border coordination. Where the respondent's assets span multiple jurisdictions, recognition in Vietnam should be coordinated with parallel enforcement in other jurisdictions. The Vietnamese recognition can serve as evidence in other proceedings and vice versa.