Important Changes to the Postponement of Judgment Enforcement under the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025
Postponement of judgment enforcement is a necessary legal mechanism to ensure that judgment enforcement is carried out in accordance with the law, in line with practical conditions and to limit the arising of legal risks during the enforcement process. The Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 (effective from 1 July 2026) has introduced significant adjustments to the regime on Postponement of judgment enforcement, toward specifying the legal grounds, limiting the scope of application and enhancing flexibility in enforcement organization. Proper understanding of these new provisions is of great importance not only for enforcement officers and lawyers but also for judgment debtors, judgment creditors and judgment obligors in formulating appropriate plans and handling strategies.
1.New regulations allowing postponement of judgment enforcement in part or in whole
One of the new points of a “legislative technique” nature but with very significant practical impact under the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 is the permission for competent authorities to decide on the postponement of judgment enforcement in respect of part or the whole of the judgment enforcement, depending on the scope affected by the grounds for postponement.
Under the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2008 (as amended and supplemented in 2014), the regulation only stopped at the general concept of “postponement of judgment enforcement” without clarifying the scope of postponement. As a result, in practice, when even a very minor ground for postponement arose, judgment enforcement authorities often chose the safer option of postponing the entire judgment enforcement, including parts of obligations that were already clear and fully eligible to continue enforcement. This caused direct harm to judgment creditors and unnecessarily prolonged the enforcement period.
The new regulation allowing partial postponement helps ensure the principle that postponement is applied only to the extent truly necessary, while the unaffected parts of the obligations continue to be enforced. This is an important step forward in balancing the interests of the parties and improving the effectiveness of civil judgment enforcement.
2.Adjustment of the grounds for issuing decisions on postponement of judgment enforcement
- Narrowing the grounds for postponement based on the status of the judgment obligor
The Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 has significantly adjusted the grounds for postponement related to the health condition and place of residence of the judgment obligor. Accordingly, the judgment obligor’s serious illness or the inability to determine the judgment obligor’s address constitutes grounds for postponement only with respect to obligations closely associated with personal status or obligations that are not transferable under the law.
Compared to the previous regulations, this represents a deliberate narrowing. In practice, many judgment enforcement obligations are property-related obligations that can be carried out through assets, representatives or heirs of the judgment obligor. Allowing postponement for all types of obligations merely due to illness or unknown address had previously been abused to unnecessarily delay obligations. The new regulation helps put an end to this situation and requires that postponement be closely tied to the nature of the obligation.
- Expanding the proactive rights of judgment creditors in requesting postponement of judgment enforcement
Another notable new point is that the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 allows judgment creditors to unilaterally request Postponement of judgment enforcement in writing, except where such postponement affects the interests of the State or the lawful rights and interests of third parties.
This regulation accurately reflects enforcement practice, where in many cases judgment creditors do not wish for coercive enforcement to take place immediately but instead need additional time for voluntary performance, negotiation of repayment plans or more effective asset handling. Granting this proactive right makes civil judgment enforcement more flexible, reduces tension and enforcement costs, while still ensuring risk control through limitations relating to the interests of the State and third parties.
- Narrowing and clarifying the grounds for postponement related to court acceptance of cases
The Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 has changed the approach to grounds for Postponement of judgment enforcement arising from the court’s acceptance of cases related to enforcement assets. Accordingly, not all disputes related to assets constitute grounds for Postponement of judgment enforcement as before; only disputes over ownership of assets or land use rights give rise to postponement. This regulatory approach aims to narrow the scope of application and prevent abuse of litigation or court acceptance of indirectly related disputes to prolong or stall the enforcement process.
At the same time, the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 has removed the ground for Postponement of judgment enforcement in cases involving requests to annul documents or transactions related to enforcement assets. The abolition of this ground helps limit situations where parties use procedural requests of a formal nature to “freeze” asset handling, thereby better protecting the lawful rights and interests of judgment creditors and enhancing the effectiveness of enforcement organization in practice.
Alongside narrowing the scope, the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 also supplements several new grounds for postponement that are necessary in the practical context. Notably, these include cases where courts accept requests to annul auction results, annul auction asset sale contracts or resolve disputes over auction asset sale contracts; and cases where judgment enforcement authorities receive notices of acceptance from courts or competent authorities regarding requests for reconsideration of decisions recognizing successful mediation results or annulment of awards or decisions specified in Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 2 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025. Postponement in these cases helps avoid complex legal consequences if assets continue to be handled while related legal proceedings are simultaneously ongoing and may affect the outcome of judgment enforcement.
- Other adjustments
Addition of new grounds for postponement: When a decision on the application of provisional urgent measures, preventive measures or coercive measures against enforcement assets is received from a procedural authority for the purpose of investigation, prosecution or adjudication, except where the law provides otherwise. This regulation ensures necessary coordination between civil judgment enforcement and procedural activities and avoids conflicts of jurisdiction.
Abolition of outdated grounds for postponement: The Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 has abolished the ground for postponement in cases where seized assets cannot be sold and the judgment creditor does not accept the assets for enforcement in accordance with Point h, Clause 1, Article 48 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2008 (as amended and supplemented in 2014).
3.Clarifying responsibility for issuing postponement decisions with respect to parts already enforced
A notable new point of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 is the provision that when grounds for postponement of judgment enforcement exist but, at the time of consideration, the enforcement obligation has already been fulfilled in part or in whole, the competent authority shall not issue a decision on postponement with respect to the portion of the obligation or the enforcement that has been completed. Instead, the judgment enforcement authority is required to promptly issue a written notice to the person requesting postponement to clarify the scope of postponement and to confirm that the portion of the obligation already enforced is no longer subject to postponement consideration.
Compared with previous regulations, this is an important advancement in legislative technique and enforcement practice. The Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2008 (as amended and supplemented in 2014) only generally provided for issuing postponement decisions when grounds existed, without clearly distinguishing cases where obligations had already been fulfilled in part or in whole and without any provision on not issuing notices for parts already enforced. In practice, the absence of such regulation led to some postponement decisions being issued in an “overly broad” manner, unnecessarily affecting completed obligations and even causing confusion for parties regarding the legal validity of enforcement results already achieved.
The new regulation of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 helps remedy the situation of formalistic or overly broad Postponement of judgment enforcement, while affirming the principle that legally established enforcement results are not retroactively affected by postponement arising thereafter. Not issuing postponement notices for parts already enforced helps ensure the stability and certainty of enforcement results and avoids unnecessary disputes or complaints from judgment creditors or relevant third parties.
The new regulations on Postponement of judgment enforcement under the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 demonstrate a clear shift toward a conditional, limited and controlled approach to postponement. A clear understanding of the grounds for postponement, the scope of postponement and the rights and obligations of the parties will help litigants and enforcement practitioners be more proactive in formulating appropriate plans and handling strategies, thereby contributing to improved effectiveness and transparency of civil judgment enforcement activities in the coming period.
