27-06-26 MTParners
Bailiffs renamed “Enforcement Officers,” tighter enforcement fee rules, full digitalization of the enforcement process, and forfeiture of long-stagnant escrowed funds — four key changes that judgment creditors and businesses need to understand before the new law takes effect in just days.
In just 4 days, Vietnam’s Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement No. 106/2025/QH15 — passed by the 15th National Assembly at its 10th session on December 5, 2025, comprising 5 chapters and 116 articles — will officially take effect on July 1, 2026, replacing the current Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement. This law directly determines whether a court judgment or decision actually results in payment in practice. From renaming bailiffs to tightening fee calculations and digitalizing the entire enforcement process, the new law has direct implications for every individual and business pursuing a civil, business, or commercial dispute through the courts.
The 2025 Law officially renames “Thừa phát lại” (bailiff) as “Thừa hành viên” (Enforcement Officer) and “Bailiff Office” as “Civil Judgment Enforcement (CJE) Office,” to use terminology that is more accessible and easier for the public to understand. This is part of the continued policy of socializing civil judgment enforcement activities — alongside the state enforcement agency system, individuals and businesses now have the additional option of using private CJE Office services to carry out enforcement of effective judgments and decisions.
Under Article 53 of the new law, parties requesting enforcement must pay the prescribed enforcement fee. However, the judgment debtor will NOT be liable for the fee on amounts or assets voluntarily settled before an enforcement decision is issued, or settled within the voluntary compliance period under Clause 1, Article 36 of the law. Notably, the law includes a favorable transitional provision: if the enforcement agency issued an enforcement decision at the debtor’s request BEFORE July 1, 2026, the debtor will not be subject to the enforcement fee under the new law for that decision.
Regarding compulsory enforcement costs, the law clearly allocates responsibility: the judgment debtor bears costs such as compulsory enforcement notices, equipment/vehicle rental, asset valuation, asset custody and transport, and boundary surveying; the judgment creditor bears the cost of re-valuation when they themselves request it; and the state budget covers costs such as verifying enforcement conditions before compulsory measures are applied, or cases where parties are exempted or granted fee reductions.
A breakthrough feature is the law’s addition of extensive provisions on applying information technology and digital transformation to civil judgment enforcement: electronic notification of enforcement, online verification of enforcement conditions, and bank transfer as a payment method instead of relying solely on cash. The law also clarifies the payment order when multiple creditors are entitled to enforcement against the same asset (Article 54): payment follows a statutory priority order, and creditors within the same priority tier are paid proportionally to their entitled amounts; any remainder is then returned to the debtor.
The law adds a mechanism to definitively resolve funds that were provisionally collected during enforcement but have remained stagnant for years — a long-standing backlog issue at enforcement agencies. Under the new rule, if an enforcement agency does not receive the related court judgment or decision within 5 years of provisional collection, the funds will be forfeited to the state treasury. This provides the legal basis to clear long-pending “stuck” files, while also serving as a reminder for parties to proactively complete procedures before the deadline expires.
For individuals and businesses with civil or commercial judgments pending or undergoing enforcement, the timing of filing an enforcement request — before or after July 1, 2026 — may directly affect the fee payable. Digitalization (electronic notice, online verification, bank transfer) should shorten enforcement timelines but also requires parties to keep contact and bank account information accurate to avoid missing notices. Businesses with multiple receivables from different cases should pay particular attention to the priority payment rules when a debtor’s assets are insufficient to satisfy all creditors.
MT & Partners Law Firm, with a team of experienced lawyers in civil litigation and judgment enforcement, is ready to assist individuals and businesses in reviewing enforcement files, calculating enforcement fees and costs, and protecting their lawful rights when enforcing court judgments and decisions. Contact hotline 0987140772 or email info@mtpartners.vn for consultation.
(*) This article is for reference only and does not replace specific legal advice.
Keywords: Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement 2025, Law No. 106/2025/QH15, civil judgment enforcement fees, civil enforcement 2026, Enforcement Officer, CJE Office, enforcement procedure, civil dispute litigation, MT & Partners.
182
Tiếng Việt
English
中文