Short answer: A decision recognizing (or refusing to recognize) a foreign arbitral award may be reviewed under cassation (giam doc tham) procedure once it has taken legal effect — it is a “court decision” under the Civil Procedure Code 2015 (Article 325). But the parties cannot file a cassation protest themselves: only the Chief Justice of the Supreme People Court and the Prosecutor General of the Supreme People Procuracy may protest (Article 331.1); parties may only file a request for review (Article 328). Practice has recorded a cassation protest against this type of decision (Protest No. 03/2023/KN-KDTM by the Chief Justice — this article does not recount case details without having read the original text).
1. The two-tier sequence: do not skip steps
Tier 1 — appeal / protest under Article 461 of the Civil Procedure Code. A decision recognizing or refusing to recognize a foreign arbitral award, when appealed by a party or protested by the procuracy, is re-examined by the High People Court. Note the distinction: the correct basis for this type of decision is Article 461 (in the chapter on recognition of foreign arbitral awards); Article 426 belongs to the chapter on foreign court judgments and decisions, and is not the right basis here.
Tier 2 — cassation review. Only once the decision has taken legal effect and a ground under Article 326 emerges does cassation protest arise. This is the “second tier”, not a parallel track to bypass tier 1.
2. Who may file a cassation protest?
Under Article 331.1 of the Civil Procedure Code, only two authorities may protest under cassation procedure: the Chief Justice of the Supreme People Court and the Prosecutor General of the Supreme People Procuracy. A party — even the award debtor facing an adverse recognition decision — has no right to protest, and may only submit a request for cassation review (Article 328). In practice, the quality of that request (identifying the right ground and the right error) heavily influences whether the case gets reviewed.
3. The three protest grounds (Article 326.1)
A cassation protest arises only on one of three grounds:
- (a) The decision conclusions are inconsistent with the objective facts of the case, harming the lawful rights and interests of a party;
- (b) A serious violation of procedural rules preventing a party from exercising its procedural rights and obligations;
- (c) A mistake in applying the law leading to an incorrect decision that causes harm or infringes public interests, State interests, or the lawful rights and interests of third parties.
Applied to foreign award recognition, typical errors falling under these grounds include: misapplying an international treaty (e.g. ignoring Vietnam reservations upon acceding to the New York Convention 1958), violating service-of-process rules for parties abroad, or misjudging the “contrary to fundamental principles of Vietnamese law” ground.
4. Cassation hearing procedure and adjudicating authority
Cassation jurisdiction belongs to the Judges Council of a High People Court or the Judges Council of the Supreme People Court (Article 337). The hearing follows Article 341 of the Civil Procedure Code: summary presentation of the case and protest grounds → parties present their views → the procuracy representative speaks → deliberation and voting → the decision is announced at the hearing. Specific decisional directions (uphold, annul for retrial, annul and terminate, etc.) follow the general mechanism of the Code — exact article numbers should be checked against the original text and are not speculated here.
5. Suspension of enforcement: a key defensive tool
While cassation is pending, the protesting authority may order suspension of enforcement of the decision until the cassation decision is issued (Article 332.2 of the Civil Procedure Code). For the award debtor — e.g. a Vietnamese company that lost a Singapore arbitration with the counterparty pushing enforcement in Vietnam — this is a defensive tool of real practical value, to be factored in from the moment the cassation review request is prepared.
6. The boundary: cassation does not re-examine the award merits
To be clear: cassation is not a third level of trial on the merits of the dispute, and courts do not re-examine the substance of the foreign arbitral award. The review object is only the Vietnamese court recognition decision — whether it was lawful as to recognition procedure and grounds.
Frequently asked questions
The recognition decision is already effective — what doors remain for the company? Cassation review — but only via protest by the Chief Justice or the Prosecutor General; the company files a request (Article 328).
Which article governs appeals against recognition decisions? Article 461 of the Civil Procedure Code (not Article 426 — that article applies to the chapter on foreign court judgments).
Must the decision be enforced while cassation is pending? The protesting authority may suspend enforcement until the cassation decision (Article 332.2).
Has your company lost a foreign arbitration and the counterparty is seeking recognition in Vietnam, or do you need an assessment of cassation review options? Reach us via the Contact page of FLAT Law Firm.
The information in this article is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice.
The legal content of this article is reviewed by the AI Legal Council of FLAT and submitted to the owner for approval before publication; it is not an opinion of a licensed lawyer and does not replace legal advice for specific cases.
