Against the backdrop of deepening global economic integration and increasingly frequent cross-border exchanges, whether foreign arbitral awards, as well as effective judgments and rulings of foreign courts, can be recognized and enforced in China has become a central concern in international commercial activities and cross-border legal practice.

The cross-border recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in China are directly applied for under the New York Convention and China's Civil Procedure Law, with unified standards. For example, Chengdu Intermediate People's Court ruled to recognize and enforce an arbitral award issued in March 2020 by the arbitration tribunal of Hamburg Commodity Exchange Registered Association in Germany, in a case between a German company and a Sichuan company ((2022) Chuan 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 5).

In contrast to the enforcement mechanism for foreign arbitral awards, which relies on the New York Convention as a global framework, the cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments and rulings from foreign courts present a more complex and diverse legal landscape.

At present, there is still no universal multilateral convention in force for China on the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments at the legal level. Therefore, this field primarily relies on the foundational principles established in the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and operates through two core pathways: "bilateral judicial assistance treaties" and the "principle of reciprocity." The following section uses effective civil judgments and rulings from German courts as an example to illustrate their recognition and enforcement in China, aiming to provide clear guidance and insights for related practices.

1. Chinese courts have the authority to recognize and enforce effective civil judgments and rulings from German courts based on the principle of reciprocity

1.1 Legal Basis for Recognizing and Enforcing German Court Civil Judgments and Rulings

The Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China provides general provisions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments and rulings, clarifying the basic conditions for foreign court judgments to gain recognition and enforcement in China.

For example, the judgment must have become legally effective, must not violate the fundamental principles of Chinese law, and must not undermine China’ s national sovereignty, security, or social public interests. These provisions serve as the basis for Chinese courts to review and process applications for the recognition and enforcement of German court judgments.

1.2 Conditions for Recognizing and Enforcing German Court Judgments and Rulings

1.2.1 Determination Based on Reciprocity

According to Articles 544 to 547 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’ s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’ s Republic of China, where a party applies to a competent intermediate people’ s court for the recognition and enforcement of a legally effective judgment or ruling made by a foreign court, and there is no international treaty concluded or jointly acceded to between the country of that foreign court and the People’ s Republic of China, nor is there a reciprocal relationship, the application shall be dismissed by ruling (except for legally effective divorce judgments made by the foreign court).

As China and Germany have not yet entered into a bilateral judicial assistance treaty, specific conditions for recognizing and enforcing German court judgments cannot be determined based on such an agreement. In such cases, the reciprocal relationship becomes a crucial factor for consideration. China’ s Civil Procedure Law does not confine the principle of reciprocity solely to the prerequisite that the relevant foreign court must have previously recognized and enforced civil judgments and rulings from Chinese courts. Naturally, if the relevant foreign court has precedents of recognizing and enforcing Chinese court judgments and rulings, a de facto reciprocal relationship between the two countries in the recognition and enforcement of civil judgments and rulings may be established. However,

even if there are no existing precedents of the foreign court recognizing and enforcing Chinese civil judgments and rulings, if the legal conditions for recognizing and enforcing judgments and rulings from other countries under the law of the foreign court’ s country are

fundamentally similar to or more lenient than those under Chinese law, it may be inferred that, within the legal framework of that country, civil judgments and rulings made by Chinese courts would be recognized and enforced under equivalent circumstances. Under this premise, if there is no precedent of the foreign court refusing to recognize and enforce Chinese court judgments and rulings on the grounds of a lack of reciprocity, a legal reciprocal relationship between China and Germany may be found to exist, subject to the PRC court’ s case-by-case assessment.

1.2.2 Legally Effective Judgments/Rulings from German Courts

Determining whether a German court judgment has taken effect requires reference to German legal provisions and judicial practice. Generally, after the statutory appeal period has expired and no appeal has been filed by the parties or the appeal has been dismissed, the German court judgment becomes legally effective. When applying for recognition and enforcement, the applicant must provide corresponding documentary evidence, such as a certificate of enforceability issued by the German court, to prove that the judgment has entered into force. This requirement aims to ensure that the judgment to be recognized and enforced possesses finality and conclusiveness, thereby avoiding unnecessary enforcement procedures for judgments that are not yet effective.

1.2.3 Consideration of Fundamental Legal Principles
The German court judgment must not violate the fundamental principles of Chinese law, such as equality, fairness, and good faith. For example, if a German court judgment clearly breaches the principle of equality in either substance or procedure, such as by granting unjust treatment to parties of different nationalities, Chinese courts may deem the judgment contrary to the fundamental principles of Chinese law and therefore refuse recognition and enforcement.

1.2.4 Protection of National Sovereignty, Security, and Social Public Interests

Safeguarding national sovereignty, security, and social public interests is a crucial mission of Chinese law. If the content of a German court judgment involves actions that harm China’ s national sovereignty, such as interfering in China’ s internal affairs or infringing upon China’ s territorial sovereignty; poses a threat to China’ s national security, such as involving military secrets or sensitive national security information; or violates China’ s social public interests, such as supporting illegal gambling, drug trafficking, or environmental pollution, Chinese courts will not recognize or enforce such judgments.

2. Recognition and Enforcement Procedure for Judgments and Rulings of German Courts

2.1 Applicant and Jurisdictional Court

2.1.1 Determination of the Applicant

The primary applicant is typically the creditor established by the German court judgment. When a creditor believes that recognition and enforcement of a German court judgment within China is necessary to realize their claim, he has the right to apply to a Chinese court. Furthermore, under certain special circumstances, relevant successors may also be eligible applicants. For example, in dispute cases related to inheritance issues, a successor may apply for the recognition and enforcement of a German court judgment concerning estate distribution within China. Additionally, depending on the specific circumstances of the law and the case, other parties with a direct interest in the matter may also qualify as applicants.

2.1.2 Provisions on Jurisdictional Court

According to Chinese law, applications for the recognition and enforcement of German court judgments shall fall under the jurisdiction of the intermediate people's court located in the place of the applicant's domicile, the respondent's domicile, or where the subject property to be enforced is situated.

2.2 Application Documents and Authentication/Legalization

2.2.1 List of Required Application Documents

Pursuant to Article 541 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, an applicant applying to a people's court for recognition and enforcement of a legally effective judgment or ruling made by a foreign court shall submit an application, together with the original or a certified copy of the legally effective judgment or ruling made by the foreign court and a Chinese translation. If the foreign court's judgment or ruling is a default judgment or ruling, the applicant shall simultaneously submit documentary proof that the absent party was lawfully summoned by that foreign court, unless the judgment or ruling explicitly states this.

When applying for recognition and enforcement of a German court judgment, the applicant needs to submit a series of documents. First, an original or certified copy of the German court judgment is required to ensure its authenticity and completeness. Second, documents proving that the judgment/ruling has become effective, such as a certificate of enforceability issued by the German court, must be provided. Additionally, relevant evidential materials for the case, identification documents of the parties, and other documents may also be necessary. The completeness and accuracy of these materials are crucial to the success of the application.

Based on the relevant provisions concerning applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments and rulings as stipulated in the Meeting Minutes of the National Courts Symposium on Foreign-Related Commercial and Maritime Trial Work, and in light of judicial practice, it is advisable to prepare the following documents:
1) The original or a certified copy of the judgment/ruling;
2) Documents proving the judgment/ruling has taken legal effect;
3) For default judgments, documents proving the foreign court lawfully summoned the absent party; if the judgment/ruling itself already explains the situations mentioned in the preceding items 2) and 3), no separate proof is required.

Documents proving that the foreign court has lawfully summoned a party typically include the following categories:
· Summons Documents:
- Court Summons: This is the most direct form of proof. Issued by the foreign court, it clearly informs the party of the court hearing's time, location, and case details. It usually bears the court's seal or the judge's signature, verifying its authenticity and legality.
- Notice to Respond to Action: Contains basic case information, the parties' rights and obligations, and requires the party to file a defense or appear in court within a specified period. It also requires official markings from the foreign court or signatures of relevant personnel.
·Service Proof:
- Certificate of Service: Records the process and result of serving legal documents such as the summons or notice to respond, including the time, place, server, and recipient of service. If it contains a receipt signed by the party or their authorized agent, it strongly proves lawful service.
- Proof of Service by Mail: If service of the summons documents was conducted by mail, registered mail receipts, courier tracking numbers, and logistics records showing the delivery time, recipient address, and receipt status can serve as proof of service.
- Record of Service by Publication: If direct service was impossible, the foreign court may have used service by publication. In such cases, records of the publication (e.g., screenshots of the announcement published in specific official media or on the court bulletin board, original newspapers where the announcement was published, etc.) can serve as proof of lawful summons.
4) Foreign language documentary evidence submitted, such as the judgment/ruling, must be accompanied by a Chinese translation stamped/certified by a translation institution. Documents formed outside the territory of the People's Republic of China shall undergo notarization and authentication procedures, or comply with the evidentiary procedures stipulated in relevant international treaties concluded between the People's Republic of China and the country where the documents were formed.
5) Application Form: This should clearly state the basic information of the applicant and respondent, the claims sought, the factual and legal grounds relied upon, etc.

2.2.2 Requirements and Process for Authentication/Legalization

Since German court judgments and related documents are formed in Germany, authentication/legalization procedures are necessary to ensure their authenticity and legality. Germany is a contracting state to the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (the Hague Convention). If the relevant documents fall within the scope of the Apostille Convention, the applicant may choose to obtain an Apostille. If the documents are not suitable for an Apostille, they must still undergo the traditional process: first, notarization by a local German notary public; followed by authentication by the German Foreign Office or its authorized agency; and finally, consular legalization by the Chinese embassy or consulate in Germany, thereby 
completing the full notarization and authentication process.

3. Examination and Ruling Enforcement by Chinese Courts

3.1 Content and Standards of Examination

Upon receiving an application, Chinese courts will conduct a comprehensive review of the German court judgment.

Regarding jurisdiction, the courts will examine whether the German court had legitimate jurisdiction based on the principles established under Chinese domestic law. Due to the absence of clear guidance from a bilateral treaty, determining jurisdiction may involve greater uncertainty and complexity.
In terms of the legality of the judgment procedure, the courts will examine whether the German court's trial process complied with due process, ensuring that the losing party was afforded a fair opportunity to litigate. This includes examining whether the parties were lawfully summoned and notified, whether they were given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present their arguments, whether they had adequate time and means to prepare and submit a defense, and whether they were allowed to present evidence, among other aspects.
Furthermore, the courts will also examine whether the judgment violates the fundamental principles of Chinese law or public interests.

3.2 Procedure for Rulings on Recognition and Enforcement

After examination, if the Chinese court finds that the German court judgment meets the conditions for recognition and enforcement, it will issue a ruling recognizing the validity of the judgment.

Following recognition, if enforcement is required, the court will issue an enforcement order and proceed with enforcement according to Chinese execution procedures. During the enforcement process, the court may adopt corresponding enforcement measures, such as sealing, seizing, or freezing the property of the person against whom enforcement is sought, to ensure the judgment is effectively enforced. However, if the court determines that the judgment does not meet the conditions—for example, if it violates fundamental principles of Chinese law or public interests—it will rule not to recognize or enforce it.

Regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, the rulings made by the people's court after examination are final and take legal effect upon service.

Conclusion

In the area of recognizing and enforcing foreign court judgments, Chinese courts have established a prudent and clear review framework through multiple mechanisms, including jurisdiction review, procedural legality review, and the public policy reservation. This framework reflects respect for the principles of international judicial cooperation while steadfastly upholding the fundamental bottom line of safeguarding national sovereignty, security, and social public interests.

Currently, in the absence of a global convention on judgment enforcement, China's reliance on bilateral treaties  and de facto reciprocity as primary pathways demonstrates the pragmatism and openness of its judiciary. As China deepens its integration into international civil and commercial exchanges, the further refinement of relevant review standards and the accumulation of related judicial precedents will provide a higher degree of predictability for cross-border parties.