Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology (CFI, 27 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 27 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_1902/2025), the Milan Local Division dismisses Cardo Systems’ application for an alternative method of service (Rule 275 RoP) of its statement of claim on Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology and Resosport, based in mainland China and Hong Kong. Since the steps under the Hague Convention are still under way, it has not been shown that service could not be effected. A claimant cannot bypass the delays of the Convention route before it has failed.

Question

Can the claimant obtain service by an alternative method, in particular on the defendants’ representatives in parallel proceedings, while service under the Hague Convention is still pending?

Decision

As the defendants are domiciled outside the Union and the Contracting Member States, service falls under Rule 274.1(a)(ii) RoP and must follow a Hague Convention method permitted in China and Hong Kong. According to the Court of Appeal, such attempts should normally precede service under Rule 274.1(b) or an alternative method under Rule 275. The request sent to the Supreme People’s Court is still being processed, and the Hong Kong Central Authority confirmed it is handling the request within the usual period of about four months. The condition of Rule 275.1, that service could not be effected, is therefore not met, and both the main request and the alternative request to validate the steps already taken are dismissed.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: against a defendant based in China or Hong Kong, several months of service under the Hague Convention should be expected, a Rule 275 application stands a chance only once the failure or blocking of that route is documented.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 274.1 and 275

Other provisions

Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on service

Case law cited

NEC v TCL, Court of Appeal, 29 July 2024, UPC_CoA_86/2024, Court of Appeal, 5 August 2024, UPC_CoA_183/2024, Court of Appeal, 5 August 2024

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.