Article 534
The people's court may deliver the service by mail if permitted to do so by the state in which the person is served。
The service shall be accompanied by a certificate of return. If the person served does not sign for the return certificate but signs for the return letter, the service shall be deemed to have been served on the date of receipt。
If, after three months from the date of mailing, no documents of service have been received and, in the light of the circumstances, it is not sufficient to conclude that they have been served, they shall be deemed not to have been served by mail。
[new]
I. Core orientation of the provisions
Article 534 is the “rules of operation for the delivery of mail in foreign civil proceedings and the criteria for the determination of `considered unserviceable'”, which states:
Prerequisites for service by mail: the state in which the person is served allows service by mail; standard of service recognition: if the person has not received the service at the return certificate but has signed the receipt at the return letter, it is deemed to have been served (the date of receipt is the date of service); period of time for “considered not capable of delivery by mail”: three months after the date of the mailing, if the service of the document is not received and is not sufficient for the determination of service, the service cannot be delivered by mail (other means are required)。
This article addresses the practical pains of “uncertain service” “delay in proceedings” in foreign mail service, regulates the service procedure and enhances the efficiency of foreign proceedings through the design of a system of “predictation + determination + time limits”。
Legislative background and normative intent
(i) response to the practice dilemma of “uncertainty of mail delivery”
In civil proceedings involving foreign nationals, mail delivery is often “unconfirmable” because of problems related to transnational logistics and the low degree of cooperation of recipients abroad. Waiting indefinitely for the outcome of the mailing would result in the proceedings stalling. This article derives from the provisions of the supreme people's court on the service of judicial documents in civil or commercial cases involving foreign nationals of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the foreign service provisions), article 8 (which originally provided for a “six-month” period), and the amendments to the civil procedure code of 2012 which reduced the period of “consideration of service” by mail from “six months” to “three months” (article 274, paragraph 6), thereby adjusting the period of time “considering it impossible to deliver by mail” to bring it into line with the provisions of civil procedure law。
(ii) clear criteria for determining “delivery or non-delivery”
In practice, courts often face cases where “service documents have not been returned but the mail has been signed” (e. G. The addressee signs the mail but does not send the return document). Paragraph 2 of this article expressly states that “mail return receipt is deemed to be served” and addresses the mechanical nature of “service only on the basis of a return certificate”, using “actual receipt” as the core criterion for identification, balancing efficiency with authenticity。
(iii) mechanisms for the conversion of “mail delivery” to “other modes of delivery”**
By means of the three-fold condition of “expiring the three-month period + not receiving proof + is not sufficient to determine service”, the consequences of “considering it impossible to deliver by mail” are clearly defined, allowing the court to terminate the mailing in a timely manner and to turn to other modes of service (e. G., diplomatic channels, service by notice) in order to avoid the passage of proceedings。
Iii. Requirements and procedural requirements for the deliberation of (i) transport
Elements
Contents of the rules
Legal basis
Elements of practice
Applicable premises
The law of the country in which the person is served permits the service to be delivered by mail (subject to verification through channels such as the network of officials of the ministry of foreign affairs, mutual legal assistance agreements, as is the case in most countries such as the united states and germany, which are partially prohibited)。
Paragraph 1 of this article: “the state in which the person is served permits the delivery by mail”
This article is not applicable (subject to other means) if the host country prohibits the delivery of mail (e. G. Brazil, egypt)。
Procedural requirements
The mail must be accompanied by a return certificate (name of service, information of the person served, request for receipt, etc.); and by means of a traceable logistics (retention of the mailing certificate) through e-mail special delivery (ems)。
Paragraph 2 of this article “the service shall be accompanied by a certificate of return”
The return certificate requires two copies (one sent with the mail and one retained by the court) and the cover of the mail indicates “judicial documents”。
(ii) criteria for recognition of “considered service”
Situation
Rule on determination
Legal basis
Elements of practice
Delivery of return certificates
If the person to whom the service is to be delivered signs/sequests on the return certificate, the date of receipt shall be the date of service (most directly valid)。
Paragraph 2 (implicit) of this article
The service of the return certificate is notarized (if required by the host country) or is accompanied by a stamped certificate at the time of the mailing。
Mail resign
Delivery is deemed to have occurred when the person to whom the service has been served has not been served with a return certificate, but has signed on the e-mail receipt (e. G. Ems receipt, post office duly filed record) and the date of receipt is the date of service (core innovation point)。
Paragraph 2 of this article: “a service shall be deemed to have been served if the person served has not signed for the service of the return certificate but has signed for the return of the mail”
A proper record (including the name of the recipient, time and place) of the postal system will need to be retrieved for delivery as evidence。
(iii) identification and consequences of “considered unserviceable”
Elements
Contents of the rules
Legal basis
Elements of practice
Conditions for determination
At the same time:
1. Three months from the date of mailing
2. Failure to receive service documents (e. G. Return certificates, mail acknowledgements, certificates from offshore postal agencies)
3. It is not sufficient in the circumstances to conclude that service has been served (e. G. No record of receipt of the signature, explicit refusal of the addressee, etc.)。
Paragraph 3 of this article reads: “three months from the date of mailing, if service of documents has not been received and, in the light of all the circumstances, it is not sufficient to conclude that service has been made”
Comprehensive consideration is required as to whether the mail is returned, whether the addressee contacted the court, the offshore postal feedback, etc。
Legal consequences
If service is deemed impossible by mail, the court shall immediately terminate the post and shift to other modes of service (e. G., service of treaties, diplomatic channels, service by the representative of the embassy or consulate, service to the legal representative/representative, etc., of the code of civil procedure)。
Paragraph 3 of this article “is deemed not to be available by mail”
The modus operandi will require the preparation of a " notebook of changes in delivery mode " , which will explain the reasons for the failure of the mailing and the basis for the selection of the new mode。
Guidance on “key issues” in trial practice 1. Strict verification of proof that “the host country permits the delivery of mail” 2. “mail receipt” is fixed 3. Commutation and calculation of “three-month period” 4. “insufficient determination of service”
Situation
Case scene
Process result
Mail check-in is considered service
The chinese company a sent a copy of the indictment to united states company b (with a letter of reply) and b did not deliver the return certificate, but the ems duly filed record shows that it was “signed by the front office smith (10 january 2024)”。
The court took the certificate of certiorari and found that the “mail return receipt” was deemed to have been served on 10 january and that the appeal period would run from 11 january。
It's three months without proof that it can't be delivered by mail
The chinese company c sent a postal summons to german company d (which was allowed in germany) and did not receive a return certificate or a letter within three months, and the postal feedback “unknown address was returned”。
The court found that service could not be delivered by mail and that it could be served through diplomatic channels “after three months without the receipt of the certificate and was insufficient to determine service”。
The prohibition of mail delivery in the host country is still applicable
The chinese company e sent papers to brazilian company f (brazilian law prohibits the sending of judicial documents) and the mail was withheld by the brazilian postal service。
After review, the court found that “the state in which the post was sent was not permitted”, and ruled that the service was invalid and that alternative means of delivery had to be re-selected。
Article 6 of the core list of legal grounds: supreme people's court interpretation of the application of the civil procedure law of the people's republic of china (amended in 2022), article 534 (article 19); law of the people's republic of china on civil procedure (amended in 2021), article 274, paragraph 6 (mail service: “if the state in which the person is served permits the service to be delivered by mail, it may be served by mail, after three months from the date of mailing, the return certificate has not been returned, but it is deemed to have been served on the date of expiry, depending on the circumstances, sufficient for the service to be served”, article 8 (amended in 2020) of certain provisions of the supreme people's court concerning the service of judicial instruments in civil or commercial cases involving foreign nationals (“three months from the date of mailing shall be deemed not to have been served by post if the failure to receive the certificate of delivery was not sufficient in the light of the circumstances”). Relevant norms: law of the people's republic of china on post (as amended in 2015) article 84 (evidence of proof of proper recording of postal enterprises); ministry of foreign affairs, collection of documents implementing the law on foreign state immunity (validation of the host country's postal service policy); article 11 of the law on the application of the law on foreign civil relations (the principle of party autonomy and the closest connection between the principle of party autonomy and the subsidiary mode of delivery). Summary: “institutional value” of the article
Article 534 achieves the three-fold objective through the rule of “defining service + clearly time-bound”:
(c) regulate the procedure for the delivery of mail: clarify the premises “permitted by the host country” and the requirement “with a return certificate” in order to avoid blind mailing; resolve the uncertainty of service: use “mail return receipt” as the core identification criterion, use “actual receipt” as the basis for service delivery, and reduce the reliance on “service return certificate”; improve the efficiency of proceedings: terminate invalid mail in a timely manner through a mechanism “over the three-month period + deemed unable to deliver” and shift to other modes of delivery to avoid procedural delays。
In short, this article is the “manual of operations for foreign mail service” — a clear standard, a clear time frame, a viable conversion mechanism for mail service from “uncertain” to “foreseeable”, which provides guarantees for smooth progress in foreign legal proceedings, and highlights the detailed exploration of international service practice by our judiciary。
