08-05-26 MTParners
Vietnam’s 2015 Civil Procedure Code prescribes a long list of critical time-limits — for paying advance court fees, for appealing, for submitting evidence — using “calendar days” rather than “working days”. When these time-limits fall during the Lunar New Year break or other extended public holidays, litigants are often left with only one or two actual working days to exercise their rights. Time for a rethink?
Drawing on our practice at MT & Partners Law Firm, we frequently encounter situations where litigants receive a notice to pay an advance court fee, a case-acceptance notice, or a first-instance judgment just before an extended national holiday. The 2015 Civil Procedure Code (CPC 2015) prescribes numerous short deadlines — 3, 5, 7, 10, and 15 days — but each of them is counted in calendar days rather than working days. As a result, the litigant’s procedural rights can be materially impaired by nothing more than a public holiday.
Article 182(2) of the CPC 2015 provides: “A procedural time-limit may be expressed in hours, days, weeks, months, years, or by reference to an event that may occur.” Article 182(3) cross-refers to the Civil Code for the method of calculating procedural time-limits. Building on that framework, the CPC 2015 uses the unit of “days” (calendar days) for many time-limits that are decisive for litigants’ rights.
Under Article 195(2) of the CPC 2015, “within 7 days from the date of receipt of the court’s notice on the payment of advance court fees, the plaintiff must pay the advance court fee”. Likewise, Article 276(1) requires an appellant to pay the advance appellate court fee within 10 days of receipt of the court’s notice. The deadline for appealing a first-instance judgment under Article 273 is 15 days from the date of pronouncement. Deadlines for litigants to supplement documents, evidence, or to file responses are often as short as 3–7 days.
The common feature of these provisions is that “days” in the statutory text is read to mean “calendar days” (including weekends and public holidays), not “working days” — the unit favored by many other specialized statutes precisely to ensure that the right is practically exercisable.
Article 148(5) of the 2015 Civil Code (CC 2015) provides a measure of protection: “If the last day of a time-limit falls on a weekend or a public holiday, the time-limit ends at the close of the next working day.” However, this safety net engages only when the very last day falls on a non-working day; it does not exclude non-working days that sit in the middle of the time-limit.
The practical consequence is that a 7-day deadline on paper may, when overlapping with the Lunar New Year break (typically 7–9 consecutive days off) or the 30 April – 1 May holidays (5 days), leave the litigant with as few as 0–2 working days to visit the State Treasury, the bank, or the court. The legal consequence of late payment is that the court returns the petition under Article 192(1)(d) of the CPC 2015 or terminates the appellate proceedings under Article 312 — outcomes that are nearly impossible to undo.
First, a plaintiff receives a notice to pay an advance court fee just before the Lunar New Year break. With 7 calendar days falling within an extended Tết holiday, the plaintiff cannot pay at the State Treasury or bank because they are closed. By the time business resumes, the 7-day period has expired and the court returns the petition.
Second, an appellant receives a notice to pay an advance appellate court fee within 10 days that overlaps with the 30 April – 1 May break. Even with diligent efforts at the bank and the court, the receipt is filed 1–2 days late, exposing the appeal to a finding that it is “not validly filed”.
Third, a litigant is given a 3-day deadline to provide documents or evidence in connection with a mediation session or an evidence-disclosure meeting. When that period spans Saturday and Sunday, the litigant may have just 1 working day to obtain documents from public agencies — effectively impossible for many records that require verification by local authorities.
Fourth, the 15-day appeal deadline under Article 273 of the CPC 2015 runs from the date of pronouncement. During Tết or extended holiday weekends, parties in remote areas seeking to file an appeal in person at the trial court face serious obstacles because courts do not accept filings on holidays — yet Article 148(5) of the CC 2015 only “extends” the last day.
Across Vietnam’s legal system, many statutes have deliberately adopted “working days” rather than “days” to ensure feasibility — for example, the Law on Handling of Administrative Violations, the Law on Tax Administration, the Bidding Law, the 2020 Enterprise Law, the 2020 Investment Law, the Competition Law, and the Intellectual Property Law. This reflects an administrative reality: citizens and businesses must transact with state agencies, banks, and the State Treasury — all of which operate only during business hours.
The CPC 2015 is not entirely without “working days” — it does use the term in some provisions (such as the deadline for receiving a petition and assigning a judge under Article 191). However, the “core” deadlines tied to a litigant’s obligations — particularly advance court fees and appeals — consistently use calendar days. This inconsistency creates unnecessary legal risk for litigants.
For litigants, especially those without counsel from the outset, calendar-day calculations create a “procedural trap” that is hard to detect. A decision returning a petition or terminating an appeal can extinguish the right of action altogether where the limitation period has run, since re-filing does not restart the clock.
For adjudicative practice, the lack of clarity drives inconsistent application across courts: some apply Article 148(5) of the CC 2015 flexibly to accept a receipt filed on the next working day, while others apply the literal text and return the petition. This undermines the uniformity of justice.
For litigants: upon receipt of a court notice, immediately project the deadline against the calendar — identify any holiday breaks within the window and discharge the obligation before the first day off. If a transaction cannot be completed for objective reasons (banks or treasuries closed), prepare an explanation supported by evidence (the official holiday schedule, written confirmation from the bank, etc.) to invite the court to apply the principle in Article 148(5) of the CC 2015.
For lawmakers: we recommend amending the CPC 2015 to (i) replace “days” with “working days” for short deadlines (under 15 days) tied to a litigant’s financial obligations; (ii) add a clear rule that any consecutive Tết or holiday break exceeding 3 days is excluded from the running of the time-limit, even if it does not fall on the last day; and (iii) require courts, when issuing a notice to pay advance court fees, to flag any imminent holiday break and the right to seek an extension.
For legal practitioners: a careful review of the procedural calendar, a per-case “timeline”, and proactive support for litigants to pay advance court fees and file appeals well before any safe deadline (typically at least 2 working days before a holiday) is an essential safeguard — especially in cases where the limitation period is about to expire.
MT & Partners Law Firm, with a team of lawyers experienced in civil litigation, commercial disputes, family law, and land law, is ready to assist clients in calculating procedural deadlines, preparing petitions and appeals, and paying advance court fees in compliance with Vietnamese law. Hotline +84 987 140 772 or email info@mtpartners.vn for detailed consultation.
(*) This article is for reference only and does not substitute for specific legal advice.
Keywords: civil procedure deadlines Vietnam, advance court fee deadline, working days vs calendar days, Article 195 CPC 2015, Article 273 CPC 2015, Article 276 CPC 2015, Article 148 Civil Code 2015, civil appeal Vietnam, return of petition, termination of appeal, Vietnam civil litigation pitfalls, MT & Partners, Vietnamese civil procedure law firm.
7
Tiếng Việt
English
中文