Ascertainment of foreign law in Chinese judicial practice

If parties in a foreign-related case conducted in China have agreed upon the application of a foreign law, or a foreign law is applicable according to law, then the ascertainment of such foreign law is a necessary procedure in litigation or arbitration.

Allocation of responsibility

Article 10 of the Law on the Application of the Law in Foreign-Related Civil Relationships distinguishes the bearing of responsibility for the ascertainment of a foreign law, based on the reason why such a foreign law applies: (1) where a foreign law applies based on the rules for conflicts of laws, the adjudicating body bears the responsibility; or (2) where foreign law applies based on the choice of the parties, the parties are responsible for providing the same. The law also specifies that if a foreign law is not ascertained, the domestic law of China will apply as the governing law in the trial of the foreign-related case.

As to how the inability to ascertain a foreign law is determined, article 17 of the Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court of Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Law on the Application of the Law in Foreign-Related Civil Relationships likewise distinguishes the above-mentioned two circumstances for differential handling:

(1) where the adjudication body is responsible for ascertaining the foreign law, if the foreign law remains unobtainable through such means as provision by a party, the means specified in an international treaty, provision by Chinese or foreign legal experts, etc., it can be found to be unascertainable; or

(2) where a party is required to provide the foreign law, if it fails to do so during the reasonable period designated by the adjudication body, without a legitimate reason, it can be found to be unascertainable.

However, in cases where the parties have agreed upon the application of a foreign law, judicial practice has not completely proceeded in accordance with the above-mentioned provisions. For example, in the cases Su Jing Chu Zi No.1 (2000) and Yue 03 Min Zhong No.591 (2018), despite the failure by the parties to provide the foreign laws, the courts did not directly find that the foreign laws were unascertainable, rather they ascertained the same ex officio, or pursuant to an application by the parties.

In the case Zhe 0382 Min Chu No.1366 (2017), the court took an even more active approach by not requesting that the parties provide the South Korean law that was specified in their agreement as being applicable, and directly ascertaining and applying such law itself.

Means of ascertainment

Article 193 of the Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Thorough Implementation of the General Provisions of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (for Trial Implementation), and article 8 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Establishment of the International Commercial Court both specify seven means for ascertaining a foreign law: (1) provision by the parties; (2) provision by Chinese or foreign legal experts; (3) provision by a law ascertainment service firm; (4) provision by a China International Commercial Court Expert Committee member; (5) provision by a central authority of the signatory with which China has entered into a judicial assistance agreement; (6) provision by the Chinese embassy/consulate in the country in question; and (7) provision by the embassy/consulate in China of the country in question.

Further clarified in article 51 of the Minutes of the Second National Work Conference on Foreign-Related Commercial and Maritime Adjudication, issued by the Supreme People’s Court (SPC), a party may provide a foreign statutory law or precedent by such means as a legal expert, legal service firm, industry self-regulation organization, international organization, internet, etc., and may additionally provide related legal literature, information describing the law, an expert opinion, etc.

In practice, there have also been instances where a court admitted content of a foreign law that is cited in an effective judgment or ruling from another case, for example the case of Jin Min Zhong No.263 (2018). Furthermore, if a party faces difficulties in providing a foreign law, it may, before the expiration of the time limit for the adducement of evidence, apply to the adjudication body to have it ascertain the same, for example the case of Yue 03 Min Zhong No.591 (2018).

Review and findings

There is no guarantee that a foreign law obtained by one of the above-mentioned means will be directly applied. Article 18 of the SPC interpretations specifies that the adjudication body is required to listen to the opinions of the parties on the content, understanding and applicability of the foreign law in question. If no parties have an objection, it may be directly applied; if a party objects, it is up to the adjudication body to conduct a review and render a finding.

In judicial practice, the foreign law provided by a party often takes the form of a legal opinion. When a party has an objection, the adjudication body will mainly conduct its review by taking into account the following aspects.

Qualifications of the issuer. In the case Xia Hai Fa Shang Chu Zi No.21-2 (2014), the court held that the status of the lawyers that issued the legal opinion was verifiable, that both persons were partners in a law firm, and that they had the practice qualifications of Swedish lawyers, and accordingly their legal opinion could serve as preliminary proof of the provisions of Swedish law.

Completeness of the content. In the case Lu 72 Min Chu No.1454(2016), the court found that the legal opinion could not be deemed to ascertain the UK law on the grounds that the full content of the UK statutory law, or precedent on which the opinion’s conclusions were based, was not provided, and so the court did not apply it.

Compliance of the form. In the case Zui Gao Fa Min Zai No.196(2018), the defendant provided only a Chinese translation of the legal opinion issued by a Mexican lawyer at first instance, failing to have the same notarized and certified, for which reason it was not admitted by the court. At second instance, the defendant submitted a notarized and certified legal opinion accompanied by a Chinese translation, whereupon the SPC held that, “with this, the Mexican law related to the dispute in this case is now ascertainable”.

Accordingly, when a party provides a foreign law, it should endeavour to avoid the impact that such factors as the qualifications of experts, flaws in content, or form of a legal opinion could have on the admissibility of the evidence.

1. 仲裁 | 诚实信用原则在大陆商事仲裁中的适用

2. 仲裁 | 国际仲裁协议的形式要件

3. 诉讼 | 北京高院首次认可诉讼财产保全责任保险

4. 境外仲裁中的临时措施及在中国法下的可执行性

5. 目标公司回购投资人股权的合同条款效力是否迎来确定结论？——简评最高院第96号指导案例

6. 刍议仲裁和解裁决书和调解书的异同

7. 法人人格否认的实物观察

8. 违约与侵权竞合对争议管辖的影响 ——以必要共同诉讼为主要视角

9. 回顾外滩地王案——股东优先购买权规范穿透适用的斟酌因素

10. 两稻相争，香源何处 ——“稻香村”商标争议简析

11. 争议解决条款重点问题（一）——涉外合同中的法律适用条款

12. 内地承认执行香港法院判决的现实途径

13. 争议解决条款重点问题（二）——涉外合同中的争议管辖条款

张光磊律师毕业于中国政法大学，获法学学士、民法学硕士和商法学博士学位。此外，获美国乔治华盛顿大学法学硕士学位，为哥伦比亚大学法学院访问学者。张律师拥有中国及美国纽约州律师资格，为香港国际仲裁中心在册仲裁员，中国政法大学法律硕士学院和对外经济贸易大学法学院兼职导师。

张律师的主要业务领域为争议解决，在民商事诉讼、仲裁、调解等领域拥有丰富的经验，被CLECSS评选为2018年十大杰出青年律师。在香港国际仲裁中心主办的2019国际仲裁中文赛中，张律师带领竞天公诚律师事务所获得北京赛区冠军和全国亚军，其个人在所有场次比赛中均被评为最佳律师。

张律师曾代表境内外客户处理过中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会及其分会、北京仲裁委员会、上海国际仲裁中心、深圳国际仲裁院、珠海国际仲裁院、香港国际仲裁中心等仲裁机构及中国不同层级法院的数百宗民商事案件。张律师擅长在跨境交易纠纷中为客户制定整体解决方案，曾在美国、新加坡、香港等地的诉讼和仲裁程序中多次担任中国法顾问及专家证人。

张光磊律师历史文章

蔡晓霞律师毕业于中国政法大学和美国北卡罗莱纳大学，分别获得法学学士和法学硕士学位，拥有中国律师执业资格。蔡律师的执业领域为争议解决，曾代表境内外客户处理过数十宗民商事诉讼仲裁案件，并曾为多家知名企业提供常年和专项法律服务。

蔡晓霞律师历史文章

声明 DISCLAIMER

本文观点仅供参考，不可视为竞天公诚律师事务所及其律师对有关问题出具的正式法律意见。如您有任何法律问题或需要法律意见，请与本所联系。

This article is for your reference only and not to be deemed as formal legal advice given by Jingtian & Gongcheng or its lawyers. Please contact us directly for formal legal advice or further discussion about the relevant issues.