LiNA Medical v Tonglu Qianyan Medtech (CFI, 20 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 20 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_209/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division held that the steps already taken to bring LiNA Medical’s statement of claim to the attention of Defendants 1 and 2, domiciled in China, constitute good service under Rule 275.2 RoP, effective as of the date of the order. The Chinese authority had reported that the recipients refused the documents sent under the Hague Service Convention. The order gives a claimant facing refusal of service in China a quicker route than the service by public notice it had requested.

Question

Where defendants in China refuse to accept a statement of claim sent under the Hague Service Convention, may the steps already taken be treated as good service without a further attempt?

Decision

As the defendants are domiciled in a Hague Service Convention state, service is to be effected by a method permitted under that Convention (paragraph 5). On a reasoned request, the Court may order under Rule 275.2 RoP that steps already taken constitute good service (paragraph 6). The recipients’ outright and unexplained refusal, despite a fair opportunity to learn the contents, strongly indicates that other methods would also be refused, so no further attempt is required (paragraph 8, following the Mannheim Local Division). With no other alternative apparent, Rule 275.1 RoP does not apply, and the order is needed for the claimant’s effective legal protection (paragraph 9). Rule 275.4 RoP is met, since Art. 95 of the Chinese Civil Procedure Law allows service by public notice (paragraph 10). The order is to be published on the Court’s website.

Key points for practice

• An unexplained refusal to accept documents sent under the Hague Service Convention is enough for a Rule 275.2 RoP order, without a further attempt by another method (paragraph 8).
• Practical point: the request should evidence the refusal through the foreign authority’s certificate and show that the measure is compatible with the law of the receiving State, as Rule 275.4 RoP requires (paragraph 10).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 274.1(a)(2), 274.1(b) and 275

Other provisions

Hague Service Convention of 15 November 1965, Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, Art. 95

Case law cited

Corning v Caihong Display Devices, Mannheim Local Division, 1 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_820/2024), Hewlett-Packard v Shenzhen, Düsseldorf Local Division, 11 November 2025 (UPC_CFI_515/2025)

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.