B&R CasesTM 一带一路案例 TM

Kolmar Group AG, A Case of an Application for the Recognition and Enforcement of a Civil Judgment of the of

B&R Typical Case 13 Batch 2 Case 5 (Released by the Supreme People’s Court on May 15, 2017)

CHINA GUIDING CASES PROJECT March 1, 2018 Edition∗

∗ The citation of this translation of this Typical Case is:《高尔集团股份有限公司申请承认和执行新加坡高 等法院民事判决案》(Kolmar Group AG, A Case of an Application for the Recognition and Enforcement of a Civil Judgment of the High Court of Singapore), STANFORD LAW SCHOOL CHINA GUIDING CASES PROJECT, B&R CasesTM, Typical Case 13 (TC13), Mar. 1, 2018 Edition, http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/belt-and-road/b-and-r- cases/typical-case-13. For the original version of this case, see 第二批涉“一带一路”建设典型案例 (Second Batch of Typical Cases Involving the “Belt and Road” Construction),《最高人民法院网》(WWW.COURT.GOV.CN), May 15, 2017, http://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-44722.html. This document was primarily prepared by Xiaorui Yang, Sean Webb, Peter Witherington, and Dr. Mei Gechlik; it was finalized by Dimitri Phillips and Dr. Mei Gechlik. Minor editing, such as splitting long paragraphs, adding a few words included in square brackets, and boldfacing the headings, was done to make the piece more comprehensible to readers; all footnotes, unless otherwise noted, have been added by the China Guiding Cases Project. The following text is otherwise a direct translation of the original text released by the Supreme People’s Court. B&R CasesTM is a serial publication of the China Guiding Cases Project that provides full-text versions and high-quality English translations of court cases in China that are related to the country’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Determining the [Existence of a] Recognizing and Enforcing a Singaporean Relationship of Reciprocity between China Court’s Commercial Judgment for the First and Singapore Time

I. Basic Facts of the Case

Kolmar Group1 is a joint stock limited company established in Switzerland. In June 2016, [Kolmar Group] made an application to the Intermediate People’s Court of Nanjing Municipality, Jiangsu Province, [in which it] stated that [it] and Jiangsu Textile Industry (Group) Import & Export Co., Ltd.2 had had a dispute arising from a sale and purchase [but that] the two parties had reached a settlement agreement. Because [Jiangsu] Textile Industry (Group) Import & Export Co., Ltd. had not performed the settlement agreement, Kolmar Group brought suit in the High Court of Singapore in accordance with the clause in the settlement agreement, [and] the court rendered a judgment that had come into effect [prior to the present case].

Because [Jiangsu] Textile Industry (Group) Import & Export Co., Ltd. and its property were within the territory of China, [Kolmar Group] requested that the Intermediate People’s Court of Nanjing Municipality, Jiangsu Province, recognize and enforce the Singaporean judgment. [Jiangsu] Textile Industry (Group) Import & Export Co., Ltd. stated its opinions, claiming that the Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters3 signed by China and Singapore did not have provisions concerning mutual recognition and enforcement of courts’ judgments and rulings and that [the Intermediate People’s Court of Nanjing Municipality] should, according to Article 282 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China,4 reject Kolmar Group’s application.

The Intermediate People’s Court of Nanjing Municipality, Jiangsu Province, ascertained[: Jiangsu] Textile Industry (Group) Import & Export Co., Ltd. was summoned in accordance with

1 The original text reads “高尔集团”, which is translated herein as “Kolmar Group”. In the case name, this party is referred to as “高尔集团股份有限公司”, which is translated as “Kolmar Group AG” in accordance with the name found on the company’s website, http://www.kolmargroup.com. 2 The original text reads “江苏省纺织工业集团进出口有限公司”, which is translated herein as “Jiangsu Textile Industry (Group) Import & Export Co., Ltd.” in accordance with the name found on the company’s English- language website, http://en.sutex.net.cn. According to the Chinese website, http://sutex.ne.cn, the Chinese name includes a set of parentheses, i.e., “江苏省纺织工业（集团）进出口有限公司”. 3 The original text reads “《关于民事和商事司法协助的条约》”, which is translated here as “Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters” in accordance with the full English title, “Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters between the Republic of Singapore and the People’s Republic of China” (“《中华人民共和国和新加坡共和国关于民事和商事司法协助的条约》”). The full text of the Chinese-language version of the treaty is available at http://www.npc.gov.cn/wxzl/gongbao/2001-01/03/content_5007108.htm. 4 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》 (Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China), passed on, issued on, and effective as of Apr. 9, 1991, amended three times, most recently on June 27, 2017, effective as of July 1, 2017, http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/2017-06/29/content_2024892.htm. The 2017 amendment did not change the numbering of the provision cited from the legislation.

law by the High Court of Singapore but did not appear in court. On October 22, 2015, the High Court of Singapore rendered a judgment in [the company’s] absence, ordering [Jiangsu] Textile Industry (Group) Import & Export Co., Ltd. to pay Kolmar Group USD 350,000 plus interest as well as fees. [Jiangsu] Textile Industry (Group) Import & Export Co., Ltd. also received this judgment.

In January 2014, the High Court of Singapore recognized and enforced a civil judgment rendered by the Intermediate People’s Court of Suzhou Municipality, Jiangsu Province.

II. Results of the Adjudication

The Intermediate People’s Court of Nanjing Municipality, Jiangsu Province, opined[:]5 the civil judgment involved in the [present] case was rendered by the High Court of Singapore. China and Singapore have neither concluded between themselves nor jointly acceded to an international treaty on mutual recognition and enforcement of effective judgments and rulings in civil and commercial matters. However, because the High Court of Singapore has enforced a civil judgment of a court in China, [any] court in China, may, on the basis of the principle of reciprocity, recognize and enforce a Singaporean court’s civil judgment that meets [certain] requirements.

After review, [the court decided that] the [Singaporean] judgment involved in the [present] case did not violate the basic principles of Chinese law, national sovereignty and security, or social and public interests. Therefore, in accordance with Article 282 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, [the court] ruled, on December 9, 2016, to recognize and enforce the Civil Judgment No. O13 rendered by the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on October 22, 2015.

III. Typical Significance

[In] this case, a court in China, for the first time, recognized and enforced a commercial judgment of a Singaporean court. Article 282 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China provides that the basis for recognizing and enforcing a foreign court’s judgment is either an international treaty or the principle of reciprocity. To date, China has signed treaties on judicial assistance [allowing for] mutual recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments with fewer than one-third of the countries along the Belt and Road. Therefore, determining whether a relationship of reciprocity exists between [China] and another country is

5 《Kolmar Group AG 与江苏省纺织工业（集团）进出口有限公司申请承认和执行外国法院民事判决、 裁定特别程序民事裁定书》(Kolmar Group AG and Jiangsu Textile Industry (Group) Import & Export Co., Ltd., The Special-Procedure Civil Ruling of an Application for the Recognition and Enforcement of a Civil Judgment and Ruling of a Foreign Court) （2016）苏 01 协外认 3 号民事裁定 ((2016) Su 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 3 Civil Ruling), rendered by the Intermediate People’s Court of Nanjing Municipality, Jiangsu Province, on December 9, 2016, full text available on the Stanford Law School China Guiding Cases Project’s website, at https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/judgments/jiangsu-2016-su-01-xie-wai-ren-3-civil-ruling.

very critical to whether a commercial judgment of a court in a country along the Belt and Road can be recognized and enforced by a court in China.

Based on a prior case in which a Singaporean court recognized and enforced the judgment of a court in China, [the court in] this case recognized, for the first time, the existence of a relationship of reciprocity between China and Singapore and thereby, in accordance with the principle of reciprocity, recognized and enforced a commercial judgment of a Singaporean court. This [case] not only has landmark significance in the mutual recognition and enforcement of commercial judgments [between] China and Singapore but also will powerfully advance the realization of judicial cooperation in the area of mutual recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments between countries along the Belt and Road.