UPC_CFI_1902/2025 – Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology

Court
Local Division Milan
Date
Outcome
Denied
Sector
Other
Decision Type
PROCEDURAL

Expert Commentary

Serving of Statement of Claim on Chinese defendants Facts 1. The claimant looks for an efficient way to serve the Statement of Claim on Chinese defendants. 2. The claimant asks to be allowed to serve on the UPC Representatives of the defendant in another case. The Court 1. The Court of Appeal has repeatedly stated that, before any other method becomes relevant, you first have to serve by any method provided for in the The Hague Convention. 2. The service of one of the Chinese defendants is underway. 3. The Hong Kong documents did not contain China as country, and were returned but have now been properly addressed and resent. 4. In general, processing in China takes four months. 5. These 4 months have not passed, so the request is untimely and has to be rejected. Comment 1. According to the The Hague Convention, Article 15(1)(b), you can proceed with the case if 6 months have lapsed since the documents have been transmitted and the Registry has done every reasonable effort to obtain the certificate through the competent authorities of the state addressed. 2. For preliminary injunctions (Article 15(3) of the The Hague Convention), the only requirement is urgency. 3. In the requirement of “every reasonable effort” lies another reason why not the Registry but the claimant should take care of service.

Full Decision Text

1 of 4 Milan Local Division UPC CFI no. 1902/2025 order issued on 27.4.2026 CLAIMANT CARDO SYSTEMS, LTD. 13 Zarhin Street 4366241 Ra'anana / IL represented by Tjibbe Douma and Giovanni Galimberti, respectively at Bird & Bird (Netherlands) LLP, Gustav Mahlerlaan 42, 1082 MC Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Bird & Bird Società tra Avvocati s.r.l., via Porlezza n. 12, 20123 - Milan, Italy; Markus Herzog and Manuel Millahn, at Weickmann & Weickmann, Richard-Strauss-Straße 80, 81679 - München, Germany DEFENDANTS 1) SHENZHEN ZIWU CHUANGXIN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. Room 225, 2nd Floor, Phase II, Xinghe Lingchuang Tianxia, Nankeng Community, Bantian Street, Longgang District, 518129 – Shenzhen, China 2) RESOSPORT LIMITED Office 5, 8/F, Mega Cube, 8 Wang Kwong Road, Kowloon Bay, Kowloon, 000000 – Hong Kong - Hong Kong, China DECIDING JUDGE presiding judge and judge rapporteur Pierluigi Perrotti LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English SUBJECT Application R. 275 RoP 2 of 4 SUMMARY OF FACTS On 22.4.2026 the claimant filed an application pursuant to R. 275 RoP and requested the Court to: primarily a) order pursuant to Rule 275(1) RoP that service may be effected by registered mail on the Reso Representatives [as appointed in the ongoing parallel review proceedings UPC CFI no. 1382/2025], with delivery of: (i) the Statement of Claim; (ii) the letter for service by the Court for Reso Shenzhen; (iii) the Accompanying Letter for Reso Shenzhen; (iv) the letter for service by the Court for Reso HK; and (v) the Accompanying Letter for Reso HK; and (vi) translations of the above into simplified Chinese. b) order that the SoC shall be deemed served on the day on which it is send to Reso’s Repre- sentatives; c) order that service by registered mail on at least one of the Reso Representatives shall be deemed valid service on both Reso Shenzhen and Reso HK; d) order Reso Shenzhen, Reso HK, and Reso Representatives to accept the service, should Reso Shenzhen, Reso HK, or the Reso Representatives not voluntarily accept the service, e) order that Reso Shenzhen and Reso HK shall file their Statement of Defence within three months from the date of deemed service. in the alternative if the Court determines that no alternative method of service under Rule 275(1) RoP is legally and factually possible, or should Reso Shenzhen, Reso HK, or the Reso Representatives not accept service by way of the alternative method ordered by the Court: a) order pursuant to Rule 275(2) RoP that the steps already taken, or to be taken in the attempt at service constitute “good service” pursuant to Rule 275(2) RoP; b) order that the SoC is deemed served on the date of the order or any other date deemed ap- propriate by the Court; c) order that Reso Shenzhen and Reso HK shall file their Statement of Defence within three months from the date of deemed service; d) publish the order on the Court’s website, stating the names of the parties and the docket number, and indicating that an order replacing formal service was issued, together with the date of that order. On the same date 22.4.2026, the clerks at the Sub-Registry followed the instructions of the judge rapporteur and provided a report on the current status of service in relation to both de- fendants. GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER As the claimant has expressly acknowledged in its application, in the present case service is governed by part 5, chapter 2, section 2 of the RoP. In particular, R. 274.1(a)(ii) RoP applies, 3 of 4 because the defendants are domiciled outside the Contracting Member States and outside the European Union, respectively in China and in China’s Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong. Accordingly, the registry is to serve the statement of claim (SoC) by any method pro- vided by The Hague Service Convention permitted for service in China and in Hong Kong. The UPC Court of Appeal has repeatedly clarified that attempts to serve in China by any method provided for by the Hague Convention pursuant to R. 274.1(a)(ii) RoP shall normally be made before service permitted by the law of the state where service is to be effected (R. 274.1(b) RoP) or before alternative methods or at an alternative place (R. 275 RoP) is permitted (see UPC CoA no. 69-70/2024, order of 29 July 2024; UPC CoA no. 86/2024, order of 5 August 2024, UPC CoA no. 183/2024, order of 5 August 2024). The following circumstances are set out in the clerks’ report dated 22.4.2026: - for Defendant 1), the service of the SoC was submitted on 3.2.2026 through the online portal for service ILCC (International Legal Cooperation Center - ILCC- under the Min- istry of Justice performs the functions of the Central Authority in charge of judicial assis- tance in civil and commercial matters). The Status of service is still “The case has been transferred to the Supreme People’s Court for further processing. Please wait patiently for the result”; - for Defendant 2), the service of the SoC was sent by registered mail to the Central Au- thority on 23.1.2026. On 9.2.2026, the Central Authority returned the documents back to the Milan LD requesting an amendment in order to proceed with service thereof: the ref- erences to “Hong Kong” are listed on an equal basis with references to a sovereign stat viz. “China” in the request form and/or documents to be served. Please amend “Hong Kong” therein to “Hong Kong SAR, China” which stands for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s of Republic of China. The Claimant was informed accordingly and provided this sub-registry with the amended document for the service. This sub-registry sent the documents by registered post to the Central Authority on 4.3.2026. The Central Authority received the documents on 23.3.2026 as stated on the return receipt postcard. On 2.4.2026 this sub-registry requested by e-mail confirmation of the actual date of service to Defendant 2) and the Central Au- thority replied on 16.4.2026, specifying that they were still processing the request accord- ing to the established procedure and noting that the time for execution of a request in Hong Kong SAR, Chine is generally around 4 months, as reported on the HCCH webpage. These circumstances confirm that the attempt to serve the Defendants is currently underway. In particular, the statement issued by the Central Authority responsible for service within Hong Kong SAR appears to confirm that the prior formal objection has been successfully overcome, meaning that the request will be processed within the standard timeframe. 4 of 4 In light of the above, it is not currently possible to ascertain whether “service could not be effected”, as expressly required by R. 275.1 RoP. Therefore, Cardo’s requests are dismissed. ORDER Cardo’s “Rule 275 application” filed on 22.4.2026 is dismissed. Milan, 27 April 2026. Pierluigi Perrotti presiding judge and judge rapporteur

Key Holdings

  • Service on Chinese defendants must primarily follow methods provided for in The Hague Convention.
  • Alternative service methods are only considered after exhausting methods under The Hague Convention.
  • Processing service requests in China typically takes four months.
  • Requests for alternative service before the standard processing time (e.g., four months) are considered untimely and will be rejected.
  • The Hague Convention Article 15(1)(b) allows a case to proceed if 6 months have lapsed and reasonable efforts to obtain a certificate of service have failed.

Tags

  • Service
  • Procedure
  • International Law
  • The Hague Convention
  • Timeliness

Related Cases

View original decision