You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

February 24, 2023

Vietnam: Law on Organization of People’s Courts Under Review for Future Amendment

On February 20, 2023, the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam submitted a Practical Report on the Implementation of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts, as well as a Draft Amendment of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts to seek online comment from interested parties. Notably, the Supreme People’s Court has expressed a desire to establish specialized courts such as an IP court and a bankruptcy court.

Practical Report on the Implementation of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts

The Supreme People’s Court reviewed the implementation over the past eight years of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts (“LOPC”), which took effect in 2015. Some highlights of the implementation process, as set out in the Supreme People’s Court’s practical report, are as follows:

  • Re-systematization of all levels of courts: The LOPC systematized the court system in Vietnam, including four levels:
    1. Supreme People’s Court
    2. Three Superior People’s Courts
    3. 765 first-instance trial courts (including 702 district courts and 63 provincial courts)
    4. 66 appellate courts (including 63 provincial people’s courts and the three Superior People’s Courts)

    In addition, the Supreme People’s Court established four adjudicating agencies for cassation and reopening (including three Judicial Committees of the Superior People’s Court and the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court).

  • Support departments for the court have been strengthened, and policies have been developed to train judges.
  • Trial results: From June 1, 2015, to April 30, 2022, the courts have settled 3,187,285 cases of all kinds out of a total of 3,334,915 cases handled (95.57%). Most of the remaining cases are newly accepted and still within the time limit for settlement as prescribed by law. On average, the courts have had to deal with about 476,416 cases each year.

Draft Amendment of Law on Organization of People’s Courts

Despite the notable accomplishments of the past eight years, a number of weaknesses were found to exist in the court system under the current LOPC. Based on its evaluation, the Supreme People’s Court decided to amend the LOPC to be in line with the current situation.

In its draft amendment of the LOPC, the Supreme People’s Court identified six major issues to resolve:

  1. Completing regulations on positions, functions, tasks, powers, and principles of organization and operation of the court.
  2. Completing regulations on the organization of the people’s court apparatus.
  3. Amending and supplementing the name, functions, tasks, and composition of the National Council for Selection and Supervision of Judges.
  4. Completing regulations on judicial titles in the people’s courts.
  5. Securing resources to build a modern, effective, and efficient court.
  6. Renovating and perfecting the mechanism for people’s participation in trials at court.

Among these six issues, two are of particular interest:

Issue 2: Completing regulations on the organization of the people’s court apparatus

The Supreme People’s Court wants to improve the organizational structure of the people’s court system. Thus, the new draft will focus on the following matters:

  • Superior People’s Court: The current organizational structure of the Superior People’s Court does not have specialized courts in specific areas such as intellectual property and bankruptcy. Hence, in the near future, the Supreme People’s Court would like to establish a separate intellectual property court.
  • Provincial people’s courts: The provincial people’s courts have both first-instance and appellate cases according to the provisions of law, and also examine the legally effective judgments and decisions of the provincial People’s Courts to recommend cassation, leading to an overly broad set of responsibilities and a lack of focus on certain stages of proceedings.
  • District-level people’s courts: The current district-level people’s court structure is still simple, with no specialized organization separating the settlement and adjudication of simple cases from the settlement and adjudication of cases requiring in-depth expertise (such as cases of intellectual property and bankruptcy).

Issue 5: Securing resources to build a modern, effective, and efficient court

According to the Supreme People’s Court, all levels of the court system are facing various difficulties. Particularly, the number of criminal cases, commercial disputes, and civil lawsuits requiring court settlement is increasing, with cases expanding in scale and complexity, while the number of judges and staff of the court remains very limited, leading to an overload of cases compared to the court’s capacity. In addition, the working conditions and facilities of the courts are still subpar or lacking, and not enough attention has been paid to ensuring they properly meet the functions and tasks of the people’s courts. The remuneration regime for judges and other judicial positions is not satisfactory compared to their working capacity, responsibilities, and occupational risks.

Vietnam’s court system is independent of the legislative and executive bodies, not belonging to the government or to ministerial-level agencies or branches. However, the mechanism for allocating funds to the court depends on the government, which leads to a prolonged process of approving the budget, limiting the proactive management and use of the court’s budget in the implementation of the law. In particular, this mechanism also leads to a misperception about the role of the court, affecting its independence.

To solve this problem, the Supreme People’s Court has considered increasing the number of judges, and building a system of budget equalization transfers from the central to the provincial courts. This effort will hopefully decrease the number of pending suits at court.

The Supreme People’s Court is collecting comments on this draft on its online portal.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center