Tag: Civil Judgment Enforcement

Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 effective from 01 July 2026: What should Enterprises pay attention to?

Written by TNTP LAW on 16 March, 2026. Posted in Legal newsletter.

In business and production activities, disputes between enterprises and the initiation of legal proceedings to resolve such disputes are often unavoidable. However, after judgments or decisions of dispute resolution authorities take legal effect, the enforcement process is often prolonged, directly affecting the rights and interests of enterprises. The Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement No. 106/2025/QH15 of 2025 (“Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025”) will take effect from 01 July 2026 and replace the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2008 (“Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2008”). This article analyzes important new provisions of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 that enterprises should particularly note to protect their rights and interests in debt recovery and dispute resolution.

1.Recognition of the legal validity of electronic documents in civil judgment enforcement

For the first time, the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 stipulates electronic documents in civil judgment enforcement under Clause 3, Article 5. Accordingly, electronic documents refer to records and information related to judgment enforcement created in the form of data messages, digitally signed, transmitted, received, stored, and processed in a digital environment. These documents are recognized as having legal validity equivalent to paper documents if they meet statutory requirements. For example, a sale and purchase contract established in electronic form and bearing valid electronic signatures of the legal representatives of the parties in accordance with the Law on Electronic Transactions 2023 still has legal validity in civil judgment enforcement.

Previously, the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2008 did not recognize the legal validity of electronic documents, leading many authorities to require hard copies, causing difficulties for enterprises. Under the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025, enterprises need to ensure that the creation, storage, and use of electronic dossiers comply with legal regulations to protect their rights during judgment enforcement.

2.Shortening the time limit and supplementing methods for verification of judgment enforcement conditions

Previously, under Article 44 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2008, enforcement officers were required to verify judgment enforcement conditions within 10 days from the expiry of the voluntary enforcement period. The Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 (Article 37) shortens this time limit to 09 days and supplements verification methods through digital platforms, direct verification, or written verification.

Additionally, to ensure the verification effectiveness, enforcement officers may request specialized agencies or hire qualified organizations or individuals to examine the actual condition of assets, capital management records, determine shares, capital contributions, digital assets, or conduct surveys and determine land use boundaries and assets attached to land.

Therefore, enterprises should closely monitor the verification process to ensure enforcement is conducted within the prescribed timeframe and to protect their lawful rights and interests.

3.Removal of the provision allowing parties to agree on price reduction levels after unsuccessful auction sales

The Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2008 stipulated in Clause 1, Article 104 that when asset auctions are unsuccessful, within 05 working days, the enforcement officer must notify and request the parties to agree on the price reduction level. If, after 10 days, the parties fail to reach an agreement, the enforcement officer may issue a decision to reduce the asset price for a continued auction. Accordingly, when an auction fails, enforcement officers must wait for 15 days to determine whether the parties can agree on a price reduction before issuing a decision to reduce the asset price, thereby prolonging the enforcement process.

The Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 amends this provision under Clause 3, Article 83, allowing enforcement officers to issue a decision to reduce the price within 05 working days from receiving notice of an unsuccessful auction without waiting for agreement from the parties. This new provision helps shorten asset handling time and accelerate judgment enforcement progress.

4.Supplementing the application of coercive measures to inspect the actual condition of assets

The Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2008 stipulated under Article 71 that coercive enforcement measures only include deduction of money from accounts, salary deductions, distraint and handling of assets, exploitation of assets, compulsory transfer of property or property rights, and compulsory performance or non-performance of specific acts. However, this provision did not specifically address coercive measures for inspection of asset conditions, leading to practical difficulties when judgment debtors or asset managers refuse to cooperate or obstruct the determination of asset conditions for distraint and handling.

To address this limitation, the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 supplements provisions under Point (d), Clause 2, Article 80, allowing enforcement officers to apply coercive measures to inspect asset conditions. Accordingly, when distraining items, houses, construction works, or other assets where the judgment debtor or asset manager is absent or fails to comply with requests, enforcement officers may organize coercive measures such as breaking locks, opening packages, requiring individuals to leave asset areas, or applying other necessary measures to conduct distraint and inspection of asset conditions.

Failure to cooperate may result in the application of coercive inspection measures and liability for damages arising during the enforcement process. Therefore, if acting as the judgment debtor, enterprises should cooperate with enforcement authorities, provide information, and facilitate asset inspections when requested.

5.Reduction of the priority period for purchasing enforcement assets

The Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2008 stipulates under Clause 3, Article 74 the time limit for exercising the priority right to purchase enforcement assets in cases of co-owned property. Accordingly, before the first sale of assets, the time limit for co-owners to purchase the judgment debtor’s portion is 03 months for immovable property and 01 month for movable property; for subsequent sales, the time limit is 15 days from the date of receiving notice. After this period expires without the co-owner exercising the purchase right, the asset will be put up for auction.

The Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 significantly adjusts this time limit under Clause 1, Article 83. Accordingly, before the first sale of assets, the priority purchase period is shortened to 15 days for immovable property and 05 working days for movable property from the date of valid notification; for subsequent sales, the period is reduced to 03 days.

With this change, enterprises, whether as judgment creditors or judgment debtors, should carefully monitor notifications and prepare plans relating to the purchase of enforcement assets to ensure their lawful rights and interests during the enforcement process.

This article titled “Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025 effective from 01 July 2026: What should Enterprises pay attention to?” is provided by TNTP for readers’ reference. Should you have any inquiries, please contact TNTP for further clarification.

Best regards,

Important Changes to the Postponement of Judgment Enforcement under the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025

Written by TNTP LAW on 9 February, 2026. Posted in Legal newsletter.

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.

Changes in Civil Judgment Enforcement under Decree No. 152/2024/ND-CP

Written by TNTP LAW on 17 March, 2025. Posted in Legal newsletter.

Decree No. 152/2024/ND-CP (“Decree 152”) continues to bring new changes and adjustments on civil judgment enforcement in Decree 62/2015/ND-CP (“Decree 62”), which was amended and supplemented by Decree 33/2020/ND-CP (“Decree 33”) before. In this article “Changes in Civil Judgment Enforcement under Decree No. 152/2024/ND-CP”, we discuss some changes related to the provisions on civil judgment enforcement in Decree 152.

1. More provisions on applying security measures and forcing civil judgment enforcement

A notable advancement introduced by Decree 152 is the incorporation of detailed provisions governing the application of security measures and the enforcement of judgments with respect to securities as assets. Pursuant to Clause 5, Article 1 of Decree 152, these enforcement measures are meticulously delineated according to the specific characteristics of each category of securities, thereby enhancing legal clarity and ensuring practical enforceability in judicial and administrative execution.

• For securities that are listed or registered for trading at stock exchanges:

– The enforcement officer shall issue a decision to freeze securities and send it to the Vietnam Securities Depository and Clearing Corporation (“VSDC”) and other agencies, organizations and individuals as prescribed in the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement. Within 01 working day from the date of receipt of the enforcement officer’s decision, VSDC shall freeze securities under the law on securities and send a notice to the civil enforcement agency and the depository member.

– The enforcement officer issues a decision to enforce the seizure and disposal of securities. Within 05 working days from the date of valid notification of the decision to enforce the seizure and disposal of securities, the parties may agree on the sale of securities and notify the civil enforcement agency in writing of that agreement.

After the above deadline, the civil enforcement agency shall issue a document requesting VSDC to transfer the seized securities to the civil enforcement agency. The civil enforcement agency shall have the rights and obligations as prescribed by law regarding the securities received. Within 05 working days from the date of receipt of the requested document from the civil enforcement agency, VSDC must transfer the securities. Within 02 working days from the date of completion of the transfer of securities, the enforcement officer shall sell according to the agreement of the parties. In case the parties do not reach an agreement or cannot reach an agreement, the enforcement officer shall sell the securities through the matching order method at the reference price, according to the provisions of the law on securities.

In case of proactively issuing a decision to enforce the judgment, immediately after issuing the decision to enforce the seizure, the civil judgment enforcement agency shall issue a document requesting VSDC to transfer the seized securities to the civil judgment enforcement agency and sell the securities by order matching method at the reference price, according to the provisions of the law on securities.

• For unlisted securities, unregistered securities, and securities that have been centrally registered at VSDC or are listed and registered for trading but cannot be sold, the enforcement officer shall enforce the asset freeze and issue a decision on coercive distraint and asset disposal. The order and procedures for the valuation and sale of securities shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement, the Law on Property auctions, and other relevant laws. After selling the securities, the civil judgment enforcement agency shall send a written request to VSDC to transfer the ownership of the securities to the buyer.

• The handling of securities, shares, capital contributions not falling under the above cases and valuable papers shall be seized and handled in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement, the law on property auctions, the law on enterprises and other relevant laws. Upon issuing a seizure decision, the enforcement officer shall concurrently issue a written notification of the seizure to the enterprise in which the judgment debtor has made capital contributions, as well as to relevant authorities and organizations. This notification serves to prevent any transfer of ownership or alteration of the current status of the seized assets until the civil judgment enforcement agency renders a final decision.

• In cases where the civil judgment enforcement agency is applying security measures or compulsory enforcement of judgments corresponding to the obligations of the judgment debtor and the judgment enforcement costs, and the judgment debtor has other assets, the enforcement officer shall issue a written request to the relevant competent authority to immediately notify the civil judgment enforcement agency when transactions arise regarding such assets for coordination in handling. This measure ensures the effective recovery of enforcement obligations and mitigates the risk of asset dissipation.

The new provisions in Decree 152 reflect an adaptation to the realities of the securities market, enhancing the feasibility of civil judgment enforcement measures. The explicit regulation of timelines and procedural steps for relevant parties, particularly the involvement of VSDC, ensures that the enforcement process concerning securities assets is conducted transparently and effectively. Additionally, the recognition of the parties’ right to negotiate before the forced sale of securities facilitates the exploration of appropriate settlement solutions, mitigating potential adverse impacts on asset value.

2. Amending rules on property auction in civil judgment enforcement

Decree 152 has the following amendments and supplements compared to Decree 33:

• Decree 152 amends the provisions on the selection of an organization for auctioning assets. Specifically, if the parties cannot reach an agreement on an auction organization, the enforcement officer will select an auction organization according to the law on auctioning assets. Decree 33 does not mention the case where the parties cannot reach an agreement.

• Decree 152 amends the deadline for delivering assets to the auction buyer. While Decree 33 stipulates the deadline for delivering assets is 30 days, but can be extended to 60 days in difficult or complicated cases, Decree 152 stipulates the deadline for delivering assets is 60 days, except in cases of force majeure or objective obstacles. This eliminates the “difficulty and complexity” factor and creates more clarity in implementation.

• Decree 152 adds sanctions for auction property buyers who do not fulfil their payment obligations on time. If the buyer does not pay or does not pay the full amount within 30 days, the civil enforcement agency can terminate the auction property sale contract or request the Court to cancel it in accordance with the law. Decree 33 does not mention specific legal consequences in this case.

Decree 152 has made important changes to improve and enhance the effectiveness of civil judgment enforcement. These amendments and supplements help clarify the responsibilities and obligations of the enforcement agency, and at the same time provide stricter regulations for related parties, especially in the field of asset auction and enforcement. These changes not only help increase transparency and fairness in the enforcement process but also create a solid legal basis to ensure the legitimate rights of related parties, contributing to improving the effectiveness of law enforcement in the field of civil judgment enforcement.

Best regards,

Tag: Civil Judgment Enforcement

TNTP & ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM

More about TNTP