Issuing Body: Guozun Cathay Associates Czech Office
Case Closing Date: July 30, 2026
Core Outcome: Dual-track advancement of domestic litigation for right confirmation + local performance enforcement in the Czech Republic, fully recovering approximately USD 70,000 in principal payment and overdue interest
This case was jointly handled by the Czech Office of Guozun Cathay Associates and the Foreign-Related Commercial Dispute Resolution Team of the Beijing Headquarters. Strictly abiding by the laws of China and the Czech Republic as well as the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), and relying on Guozun Cathay’s global cross-border legal service network and dual-jurisdiction practice qualifications, the firm provided a Hong Kong-based export manufacturing enterprise with a full-chain foreign-related claim solution covering "litigation for right confirmation + local recovery".
This case has been included in Guozun Cathay’s 2026 Typical Case Library for Foreign-Related Commercial Dispute Resolution. Its case-handling model of "precise jurisdiction anchorage + Hague apostille of evidence + synchronous pressure exertion in dual jurisdictions" has been widely applied in the handling of cross-border trade disputes in Central and Eastern Europe.
I. Case Background and Entrustment Process
A Hong Kong-based professional printed circuit board manufacturer (hereinafter referred to as the "Hong Kong Company") and a Czech electronic components limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the "Czech Company") established long-term trade cooperation in 2024. The two parties confirmed transaction details via electronic orders and business emails for years, forming a mature transaction model of "customised production – international sea freight delivery – settlement of balance payment upon receipt of goods".
In mid-2025, the two parties signed a special sales contract for a batch of customised electronic components and circuit boards, with a total value of approximately USD 70,000. The Hong Kong Company completed all production tasks as agreed, and delivered the goods to the designated port in the Czech Republic via international sea freight. After the Czech Company signed for the goods, it delayed payment of the remaining sum and corresponding liquidated damages on the grounds of terminal market fluctuations and internal capital turnover difficulties. Over the following months, the Hong Kong Company made more than ten collection attempts via cross-border emails and phone calls, but all proved unsuccessful, leaving the claim in a long-term unsettled state.
On November 4, 2025, the Hong Kong Company was connected to the Czech Office through the Beijing Headquarters of Guozun Cathay Associates. Given that the case involved three core difficulties – determination of jurisdiction across Chinese and Czech jurisdictions, confirmation of cross-border evidence validity, and recovery of assets from an overseas enterprise – the Czech Office activated the "China-Czech Emergency Collaborative Case Handling Mechanism" on the same day, and set up a special case handling team jointly with the Beijing Headquarters. The team comprises 2 local Czech practising commercial lawyers and 3 members of the Foreign-Related Lawyer Talent Pool of the Beijing Lawyers Association, who are fully authorised to handle the cross-border claim recovery of this case.
II. Full Process of China-Czech Joint Case Handling
This case adopts a standardised collaborative model where "the Beijing Headquarters is responsible for litigation right confirmation and evidence system construction in the Chinese jurisdiction, and the Czech Office is responsible for local judicial implementation and debtor performance pressure enforcement". Written work outputs and verifiable nodes are formed across all links:
1.November 4, 2025 – November 10, 2025: Dual-Jurisdiction Case Risk Assessment
Beijing Headquarters: Completed a comprehensive review of the sales contract, commercial invoice, bill of lading, correspondence emails and demand letters involved in the case, and issued the Assessment Report on the Legitimacy of Claims under Chinese Law. The report confirmed that the claim amount is clear and the fact of goods delivery is complete, and that there is sufficient factual basis and legal ground for filing a lawsuit in a Chinese court.
Czech Office: Relying on the Czech commercial registration system and local property investigation channels, verified the Czech Company’s industrial and commercial subject information, actual business address, corporate bank accounts under its name, inventory assets and other property clues within 3 working days. It confirmed that the company is in normal operation and ruled out the risk of having no assets available for enforcement. Meanwhile, it issued the Preliminary Opinion on the Feasibility of Local Enforcement in the Czech Republic to provide on-the-ground support for the subsequent recovery strategy.
2.November 11, 2025 – November 22, 2025: Cross-Border Evidence Solidification and Hague Apostille
Beijing Headquarters: In accordance with the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings, guided the Hong Kong Company to conduct hash value verification and timestamp solidification of electronic data such as key correspondence emails, electronic bills of lading and communication records. It also assisted in completing the notarisation and transmission procedures for the Hong Kong Company’s subject qualification materials and core evidence, to ensure the admissibility of evidence in Chinese courts.
Czech Office: In accordance with the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (Hague Apostille Convention), coordinated with local Czech notary institutions to finalise the certification process plan for subsequent cross-border legal documents in advance. Meanwhile, it retrieved official goods receipt slips from Czech ports and domestic logistics delivery records to further strengthen the evidence chain of actual goods delivery, ensuring that the evidence meets the validity requirements of local Czech judicial procedures.
3.November 23, 2025 – December 20, 2025: Case Filing of Litigation and Promotion of Foreign-Related Service
Beijing Headquarters: Formulated a special litigation plan focusing on jurisdiction and applicable law, and formally submitted the statement of claim and full set of evidence materials to the competent Chinese mainland court. The court officially accepted the case for filing on December 20.
Czech Office: Cooperated in activating the auxiliary channel for foreign-related service, and synchronously served litigation notice documents to the Czech Company through the local Czech judicial postal channel. Compared with the average 3–6 month cycle of traditional diplomatic service, the service duration was greatly shortened, gaining valuable time for the rapid progress of the case.
4.December 21, 2025 – May 20, 2026: Court Trial Defence and Winning Judgment
The case was officially heard on March 28, 2026. The court-appearing lawyer from the Beijing Headquarters conducted rigorous evidence presentation and court debate focusing on the elements of contract formation, the fact of goods delivery, and the determination of breach liability, and precisely responded to the core disputes over jurisdiction and application of law. The Czech Office synchronously provided references to similar cases in Czech commercial trials to strengthen the reasonableness of our claims. In the end, the Czech Company failed to mount an effective defence due to conclusive evidence. The first-instance court rendered a winning judgment on May 20, 2026, fully supporting the Hong Kong Company’s litigation claims for payment of approximately USD 70,000 in principal and overdue interest.
5.May 21, 2026 – July 30, 2026: Dual-Jurisdiction Pressure Exertion and Full Payment Recovery
After the judgment took effect, the China-Czech joint case handling team synchronously initiated the performance demand procedure:
Beijing Headquarters: Drafted a bilingual (Chinese-English) Lawyer’s Demand Letter and Warning Letter on Cross-Border Compulsory Enforcement and Enterprise Credit Punishment, clearly setting out the legal consequences of refusing to comply with the effective judgment.
Czech Office: Delivered the above documents directly to the management and legal representative of the Czech Company through local official channels. It also informed the company that if it refused to perform the judgment, it would initiate proceedings for recognition and enforcement of the Chinese judgment in the local Czech court, and simultaneously submit its breach information to the Czech commercial credit publicity platform and the electronic components industry association, which would cause material damage to its business reputation.
In mid-July 2026, the Czech Company took the initiative to contact the joint case handling team to negotiate a settlement. After multiple rounds of negotiation and communication, the two parties reached a quick payment arrangement. On July 30, 2026, the full sum of approximately USD 70,000 was remitted to the designated account of the Hong Kong Company. The cross-border claim in this case was fully recovered, and the case was successfully concluded.
III. Core Case Handling Difficulties and Authoritative Solutions
The dispute difficulties involved in this case are common issues in cross-border trade disputes in Central and Eastern Europe. Relying on dual-jurisdiction professional capabilities and practical experience, the China-Czech joint team of Guozun Cathay has developed a replicable standardised solution:
1.Determination of Foreign-Related Commercial Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in the Absence of Agreement
Professional Basis: Article 41 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Laws to Foreign-Related Civil Relations, relevant provisions on foreign-related jurisdiction in the Civil Procedure Law, jurisdiction rules of the Czech Code of Civil Procedure, and CISG application rules.
Solution: Conduct in-depth analysis of the transaction performance details between the two parties, and establish the jurisdiction of the Chinese court based on the principle of closest connection, with "the place of delivery by the seller and the place of residence of the party that characterises the contract" as the core. Meanwhile, advocate the application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods as the substantive adjudication basis, and the Czech Office issues an opinion on the application of the Convention in Czech judicial practice, eliminating disputes between the two parties on the application of law and removing procedural obstacles for the speedy trial of the case.
2.Dual-Jurisdiction Validity Reinforcement of Cross-Border Electronic Evidence
Professional Basis: China’s Electronic Data Evidence Rules, Czech Electronic Transactions Act, Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents.
Solution: Adopt a dual solidification model of "electronic evidence preservation notarisation within China + cross-border validity confirmation via Hague apostille", to fix the whole process of generation, storage and transmission of electronic orders, correspondence emails and electronic bills of lading. Meanwhile, the Czech Office retrieves official receipt certificates from local ports and logistics providers to form a complete evidence closed loop, ensuring that the evidence has full legal effect in both Chinese and Czech judicial procedures.
3.Efficient Payment Recovery and Enforcement Deterrence for Overseas Enterprises
Professional Basis: Treaty between China and the Czech Republic on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters, Czech Enforcement Act, EU commercial credit publicity rules.
Solution: Construct a dual-track recovery mechanism of "Chinese litigation for right confirmation + local pressure enforcement in the Czech Republic". At the domestic level, the legitimacy of the claim is confirmed through an effective judgment; at the overseas level, relying on the local resources of the Czech Office, quickly complete property clue investigation and direct document service, and directly communicate the consequences of compulsory enforcement and credit punishment to the debtor’s decision-making level. This avoids lengthy cross-border recognition and enforcement procedures, and achieves full recovery of the claim at the lowest cost and the fastest speed.
IV. Applicable Authoritative Legal Bases for This Case
A. Chinese Laws
1.Article 577 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China: Where a party fails to perform its contractual obligations or its performance of contractual obligations does not conform to the agreement, it shall bear liabilities for breach of contract such as continued performance, taking remedial measures or compensation for losses.
2.Article 41 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Laws to Foreign-Related Civil Relations: The parties may choose the law applicable to the contract by agreement. Where the parties have not made a choice, the law of the habitual residence of the party whose performance best characterises the contract, or other law most closely connected with the contract, shall apply.
3.Relevant provisions of the foreign-related part of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China: For a lawsuit brought against a defendant who has no domicile within the territory of the People's Republic of China due to a contract dispute or other dispute over property rights and interests, if the contract is concluded or performed within the territory of the People's Republic of China, or the subject matter of the action is within the territory of the People's Republic of China, or the defendant has distrainable property within the territory of the People's Republic of China, or the defendant has a representative office within the territory of the People's Republic of China, the lawsuit may be under the jurisdiction of the people's court at the place where the contract is concluded, the place where the contract is performed, the place where the subject matter of the action is located, the place where the distrainable property is located, the place where the tort is committed, or the place where the representative office is located.
B. Czech Laws
1.Article 26 of the Czech Commercial Code: Parties to a commercial contract shall perform their contractual obligations in accordance with the principle of good faith.
2.Article 5 of the Czech Electronic Transactions Act: Electronic documents that meet the statutory form shall have the same legal effect as paper documents.
3.Relevant provisions of the Czech Code of Civil Procedure: Statutory procedures and conditions for the recognition and enforcement of effective foreign court judgments.
C. International Convention
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG)
Article 9: The parties are bound by any usage to which they have agreed and by any practices which they have established between themselves.
Article 53: The buyer must pay the price of the goods and take delivery of the goods as required by the contract and this Convention.
V. Authoritative Practical Suggestions Based on Case Experience
Drawing on years of experience in cross-border legal services in Central and Eastern Europe from Guozun Cathay Czech Office, the following three practical suggestions are put forward for traders engaged in China-Czech and Central and Eastern European trade:
1.Standardisation of Contract Clauses: Sign a formal written foreign-related contract, clearly stipulate the subject matter of the goods, payment nodes, and liabilities for breach of contract. At the same time, explicitly agree on the applicable law (it is recommended to give priority to the application of Chinese law) and dispute resolution institution (it is recommended to agree on arbitration institutions or courts within China), so as to minimise disputes over jurisdiction and application of law from the source.
2.Standardisation of Evidence Management: Regularly back up and solidify transaction materials such as electronic orders, correspondence emails, logistics bills of lading, customs declaration documents, and payment vouchers. It is recommended to conduct electronic evidence notarisation every six months. For goods delivered overseas, pay attention to retaining official receipt certificates at the port of destination to form a complete evidence chain.
3.Timely Handling of Rights Protection: After cross-border payment arrears occur, a lawyer team with dual-jurisdiction service capabilities should be entrusted to intervene within 3 months. Leverage the local resources of overseas offices to quickly complete property investigation and document service, so as to prevent the debtor from transferring assets and increasing the difficulty of claim recovery due to delay.