Avient Protective Materials v Xinji (CFI, 24 October 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 24 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_478/2025, EP 2 791 402), the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division authorised Avient Protective Materials to serve its Statement of Claim on two Chinese companies, referred to together as ‘Xinji’, by personal delivery by a German bailiff at their stand at the A+A trade fair in Düsseldorf (4 to 7 November 2025). The order offers a practical way forward against defendants based in China.

Question

May service by an alternative method (Rule 275.1 RoP) be authorised where a request sent to the Chinese authorities under the Hague Service Convention goes unanswered, before the six-month period of its Article 15 has expired?

Decision

Yes. Rule 275.1 RoP requires a prior attempt at service, as the Court of Appeal has held (paragraph 13), the Convention route was properly followed, since electronic service in China requires the addressee’s consent and direct postal service under Article 10 is not permitted (paragraphs 11, 12 and 14). The documents, received through the portal on 2 July 2025 with the request approved on 3 July, met with silence: given the Convention’s aim of expedition, service must be taken as not capable of being effected (paragraphs 16 and 17). Article 15(2), which allows a default decision after six months, does not stand in the way: an alternative method may be ordered where service has not been effected within a reasonable time (paragraph 18). Delivery to the most senior staff member present at the stand, permitted in Germany, is an appropriate method (paragraphs 19 and 20). Service takes effect on that date and starts the three-month period for the Statement of Defence (Rule 23 RoP).

Key points for practice

• Silence from the Chinese authorities for over three months after accepting the request may be enough to show that the Hague Convention route has failed.
• A trade fair in a Member State offers an opportunity for personal service on defendants established outside the EU.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 23, 273, 274.1 and 275

Case law cited

NEC v TCL, Court of Appeal, 29 July 2024 (UPC_CoA_69/2024 and UPC_CoA_70/2024), Munich Local Division, 9 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_509/2023), relied on by the claimant

Related decisions

• Avient Protective Materials v Xingi, 11 May 2026, later decision in the same infringement action.

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.