How Chinese Courts Work: Levels, Trials, and Appeals

Chinese courts work through a unified four-tier national system supervised by the Supreme People’s Court in Beijing, with cases filed at the level that matches their size and seriousness, heard by judge-led panels that push mediation at every stage, and subject to only one appeal before the judgment becomes final and enforceable. Understanding how Chinese courts work matters whether you are doing business across the border, studying comparative law, or facing litigation inside the country, because the structure departs in several concrete ways from what common-law systems treat as standard.

The Four Levels of Courts

The 2018 Organic Law of the People’s Courts divides the judiciary into the Supreme People’s Court, three tiers of local courts, and specialized courts.¹ The three local tiers are primary people’s courts, intermediate people’s courts, and high people’s courts. Older English translations call the lowest tier “basic” courts; the 2018 revision uses “primary.”

Primary people’s courts sit at the county and district level and handle most first-instance cases. Intermediate people’s courts cover a city or prefecture, hear appeals from primary courts, and take serious or complex cases as the court of first instance. High people’s courts operate one to a province, autonomous region, or directly administered municipality, hearing appeals from intermediate courts and cases with province-wide significance.¹

The Supreme People’s Court sits at the top as the highest trial organ. It supervises every lower court and issues judicial interpretations on how laws should be applied, which effectively carry binding authority across the system.¹ The relationship between levels is supervisory. A higher court can review the legal reasoning and procedural conduct of a lower court, but lower courts are not branch offices taking orders from above on individual decisions.

Specialized Courts

Alongside the general tiers, the Organic Law names military, maritime, intellectual property, and financial courts as special people’s courts.¹

Ten maritime courts are spread across major port cities and river hubs, from Dalian in the northeast to Haikou in the south and Wuhan along the Yangtze. They handle shipping contracts, cargo damage, marine pollution, and vessel collisions, drawing on both domestic law and international maritime conventions.²

Dedicated intellectual property courts in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou were established in 2014 by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. They take first-instance cases involving patents, plant varieties, integrated circuit designs, and technical trade secrets, and hear appeals from primary courts in their cities on copyright and trademark disputes.³ A national-level IP appellate tribunal within the Supreme People’s Court now hears patent-related appeals nationwide.

Internet courts in Hangzhou, Beijing, and Guangzhou handle disputes tied to the digital economy, including e-commerce fraud, online copyright infringement, data ownership conflicts, and virtual property disputes. Filings and hearings happen through digital platforms, so neither party needs to appear in person for routine matters.⁴ Military courts form a separate branch, handling crimes involving military personnel and threats to national security within the armed forces.

Which Court Hears a Case First

Two statutes decide which level gets a case first: the Civil Procedure Law for civil and commercial disputes, and the Criminal Procedure Law for criminal matters.

For civil cases, the main sorting factor is the amount in dispute and the complexity of the issues. Most ordinary claims start at a primary court. Cases with larger sums, foreign parties, or significant social impact move up to an intermediate court. Disputes involving hundreds of millions of yuan or province-wide consequences may begin at the high court level. The Civil Procedure Law calls this “hierarchical jurisdiction,” and local courts publish specific monetary thresholds that shift periodically.⁵

Criminal jurisdiction is more clear-cut. Intermediate courts hold first-instance jurisdiction over three categories: cases that could result in life imprisonment or the death penalty, cases endangering national security, and cases involving foreign nationals.⁶ Everything else starts at the primary court. The Supreme People’s Court can take any first-instance case of national importance but rarely does.

Court Fees and Filing

Filing a civil case requires paying court fees upfront, and the plaintiff bears that cost at the outset. Fees follow a progressive sliding scale tied to the amount in dispute. Small claims under 10,000 yuan carry a flat fee of 50 yuan. Above that threshold, the percentage applied to each bracket decreases as the claim grows, starting at 2.5 percent for the portion between 10,000 and 100,000 yuan and tapering to 0.5 percent for amounts above 20 million yuan.

The losing party generally reimburses the winner’s filing fees at the end of the case. If the parties settle before judgment, the court may refund part of the fee. Each side typically pays its own attorney’s fees, though courts can award reasonable legal costs to the winner in certain categories, such as intellectual property disputes or where a contract allocates fees to the breaching party.

Mediation Inside Litigation

Mediation is woven into Chinese litigation. After a case is formally accepted, courts encourage the parties to mediate at multiple stages before rendering judgment.⁵ The judge handling the case often leads these sessions, working to narrow the issues and push toward a voluntary settlement. Participation is not strictly compulsory, but the system treats mediation as a preferred outcome rather than an afterthought.

When mediation succeeds, the court issues a mediation statement that has the same legal force as a final, non-appealable judgment. That last point catches foreign litigants off guard. Once you sign a mediation agreement and the court endorses it, you cannot appeal. For parties who want to preserve their right to a second hearing, the pressure to settle during mediation requires careful handling. If mediation fails, the case proceeds to a standard trial without prejudice.

Evidence and the Burden of Proof

Chinese courts do not use the broad discovery process familiar to litigants in the United States and other common-law systems. There is no automatic obligation to hand over every relevant document to the other side. Each party bears responsibility for gathering and presenting its own evidence, and the party making a claim carries the burden of proving it.

When a party cannot obtain critical evidence on its own for objective reasons, it can apply to the court for help. Courts have the authority to investigate and collect evidence themselves, particularly when the material is held by the opposing party, a third party, or a government agency. This court-initiated gathering fills some of the gap left by the absence of discovery, but it operates on a much narrower basis.

Parties can also request evidence preservation orders when documents, physical items, or electronic data might be destroyed before trial. The court evaluates whether the evidence is likely to disappear and whether it is genuinely relevant to the dispute. If the court grants a preservation order before the case is formally filed, the applicant must file suit within one month or the order lapses.

Who Decides: Panels and People’s Assessors

Most cases of any complexity are heard by a collegial panel rather than a single judge. The Civil Procedure Law requires an odd number of panel members, and first-instance panels can include both professional judges and people’s assessors.⁷ Simple cases handled under summary procedure may be decided by a sole judge. Anything beyond that goes to a panel.

People’s assessors are ordinary citizens who serve alongside judges during trial. Under the People’s Assessors Law, they must be at least 28 years old, generally hold a high school education or higher, and have no criminal record. On a three-member panel, assessors have the same voting rights as judges on both factual findings and legal questions. On a seven-member panel, reserved for cases with major social impact and public interest litigation, assessors vote on facts but only express opinions on legal issues. Appeal courts use panels composed entirely of professional judges.

How a Trial Unfolds

A Chinese trial follows a structured sequence. The court opens by verifying the identities of all participants, confirming the parties’ rights, and asking whether anyone objects to the panel’s composition. The presiding judge then moves to the investigation phase, where each side presents its evidence, witnesses are questioned, and the court examines the factual record. Judges play a far more active role here than their common-law counterparts, asking their own questions and directing the presentation of evidence.

After the investigation comes the court debate. Both sides present legal arguments, respond to each other’s positions, and address how the law applies to the established facts. The proceedings close with final statements from each party. The panel then retires to deliberate. Decisions are reached by majority vote, and dissenting opinions are recorded internally but not disclosed in the written judgment.

Open and Closed Proceedings

Chinese law establishes a default rule that court proceedings are open to the public. The Criminal Procedure Law requires open hearings for first-instance cases, with specific exceptions.⁶ Cases involving state secrets or personal privacy are tried in closed sessions. Cases involving trade secrets can be closed on request. Defendants under 18 at the time of trial are always tried behind closed doors. When a court closes a session, it must announce the reason publicly. The same principles apply in civil litigation, with divorce and trade secret cases closable at a party’s request.

Appeals: The Two-Instance Rule

China uses a “second instance as final” rule, meaning a case can be heard at most twice through the standard appellate process. A party unhappy with a first-instance judgment can appeal to the court one level above. In civil cases, the deadline to appeal is 15 days from the date the written judgment is served.⁵ In criminal cases, the window is 10 days.⁸ Miss those deadlines and the first-instance judgment becomes final.

The second-instance court can review both factual findings and legal conclusions. Its judgment is legally binding and marks the end of the ordinary road. There is no third-instance appeal. The system prioritizes finality, which also means a case decided by a primary court and affirmed by an intermediate court has exhausted all standard review, even when the legal issues might warrant a higher court’s attention.

Reopening a Case Through Trial Supervision

The two-instance limit is not absolute. Chinese law provides an extraordinary remedy called trial supervision, which can reopen a case after judgment has taken effect. Three actors can trigger the process. A party who believes the judgment is wrong can petition the court one level above the original trial court for a retrial. A court president who discovers an error in a judgment from that court can refer the matter to the court’s adjudication committee. And the People’s Procuratorate, acting as a legal supervisor, can lodge a formal protest against a judgment it considers incorrect.⁹

The grounds for retrial under the Civil Procedure Law are specific and demanding. They include new evidence strong enough to overturn the original judgment, findings that key evidence was forged, errors in applying the law, an illegally composed trial panel, and denial of a party’s right to present arguments.¹⁰ The bar is intentionally high. Trial supervision is a safety valve for genuine errors, not a disguised third appeal.

Enforcing a Judgment

A binding judgment is only as useful as the mechanism behind it. Under the Civil Procedure Law, a court can investigate the debtor’s bank accounts, securities, and other assets, then seize, freeze, or auction property to satisfy the judgment. It can withhold a portion of the debtor’s income, though it must leave enough for the debtor’s family to cover basic living expenses.¹⁰

The most distinctive tool is the judgment defaulter blacklist maintained by the Supreme People’s Court. People who have the ability to comply with a judgment but refuse to do so get added to the list, which triggers cascading consequences across dozens of government agencies. Defaulters can be banned from air travel and high-speed rail, blocked from purchasing real estate, restricted from sending their children to expensive private schools, and flagged across the national credit system.¹⁰ Courts can also restrict a defaulter from leaving China.

Foreign Judgments and Arbitration Awards

Getting a Chinese court to recognize a judgment from another country is possible but not automatic. The Civil Procedure Law allows recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments on two conditions: either a bilateral treaty or international convention applies, or the principle of reciprocity is satisfied. The judgment must also not violate fundamental principles of Chinese law or harm China’s sovereignty, security, or public interest.

For countries without a bilateral treaty, reciprocity has been the sticking point. Chinese courts traditionally required proof that the foreign country had previously enforced a Chinese judgment. A 2022 Supreme People’s Court conference summary shifted toward a more flexible “legal reciprocity” approach: if a foreign jurisdiction’s laws do not explicitly exclude Chinese judgments, a Chinese court can presume reciprocity exists. The burden now falls on the party opposing recognition to show that the foreign jurisdiction refuses Chinese judgments on reciprocity grounds. This remains a developing area, and outcomes vary by country.

Foreign arbitration awards stand on firmer ground. China joined the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in 1987, with two reservations: it applies the convention only to awards from other member states and only to disputes considered commercial under Chinese law.¹¹ A party seeking enforcement must submit the original award or a certified copy along with the underlying arbitration agreement. Courts can refuse enforcement on limited grounds, including lack of proper notice, an award that exceeds the arbitration agreement, or a violation of Chinese public policy. In practice, Chinese courts enforce the vast majority of New York Convention awards, and the Supreme People’s Court has established an internal reporting mechanism requiring lower courts to seek approval before refusing enforcement.

Party Oversight and Adjudication Committees

The Chinese Constitution states that courts exercise judicial power independently and are not subject to interference by administrative organs, public organizations, or individuals. That provision operates alongside, and in practice subordinate to, the Communist Party’s leadership over all state institutions. Treating Chinese courts as independent in the Western sense would be a serious misreading of the system.

The Party exercises influence through several channels. Party groups operate within courts at every level, enforcing Party discipline and controlling judicial appointments. Political-Legal Committees at each tier of government supervise the work of courts, procuratorates, and law enforcement agencies, and are typically staffed by court presidents, law enforcement heads, and other officials with direct authority over legal institutions.¹² The 2018 Organic Law also requires courts to fully document any interference by leaders, officials, or internal court personnel in judicial activities or specific cases, and to hold violators accountable.¹

Every court, from the primary level up to the Supreme People’s Court, has an internal body called the adjudication committee. These committees meet regularly to discuss difficult or sensitive cases, and their decisions bind the trial panel that actually heard the case. A committee is typically composed of the court president, vice-presidents, and the heads of the court’s divisions. The presiding judge of the case presents a summary of the facts, disputed issues, and a preliminary recommendation, and the committee members deliberate and vote.

Cases routed to adjudication committees tend to involve national security threats, the death penalty, disputes involving foreign parties or residents of Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan, mass-participation cases with major social impact, and matters where outside pressure might influence the outcome. Minutes of committee deliberations are classified and do not appear in the formal trial record. The Organic Law requires committee members to be personally accountable for their opinions and votes, and the trial panel must implement whatever the committee decides.¹ The judges who sat through the evidence and witness testimony may not be the ones who ultimately decide the case. For foreign parties in commercial disputes, the practical takeaway is that routine business cases are handled with increasing professionalism and predictability, while cases touching on political sensitivities, state-owned enterprises, or government policy operate in a different environment.

1
Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China. Organic Law of People’s Courts of the People’s Republic of China
2
Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China. China Maritime Trial (2018-2021)
3
WIPO. Decision of August 31, 2014, of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on the Establishment of Intellectual Property Courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou
4
Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China. New Regulation Adjusts Jurisdiction of Internet Courts
5
Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China. Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China
6
Congressional-Executive Commission on China. Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China
7
Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China. Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China
8
Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China. Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China – Chapter III Procedure of Second Instance
9
Supreme People’s Procuratorate. SPP Releases 10 Typical Cases of Criminal Procuratorial Protest
10
Shanghai Maritime Court. Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China
11
New York Convention. Contracting States – New York Convention
12
Congressional-Executive Commission on China. Judicial Independence in the PRC