On December 30, the Supreme People's Court officially issued the "Reply of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Jurisdiction over Civil Cases" (Fa Shi [2025] No. 15, hereinafter referred to as the "Reply"). The "Reply" was reviewed and adopted at the 1959th Session of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on November 24, 2025, and will take effect from December 31, 2025. The issuance of the "Reply" is a concrete measure taken by the Supreme People's Court to continuously and thoroughly study and implement the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and the successive plenary sessions of the 20th Central Committee, fully carry out Xi Jinping’s Thought on the Rule of Law, and provide high-quality judicial services to support the high-quality development of the economy and society. It holds practical significance for guiding people’s courts at all levels to determine jurisdiction over relevant civil cases in accordance with the law, reducing disputes over jurisdictional authority, enhancing judicial efficiency, and better safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved.

I. The Background to the Formulation of the Approval Letter

The jurisdiction system is an essential component of the judicial system, directly affecting the fairness and efficiency of justice. The report of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China called for accelerating the construction of a socialist judicial system that is fair, efficient, and authoritative, and for striving to ensure that the people feel fairness and justice in every judicial case. The “Sixth Five-Year Reform Outline of the People’s Courts (2024-2028)” issued by the Supreme People’s Court (hereinafter referred to as the “Sixth Five-Year Reform Outline”) proposes optimizing litigation jurisdiction and clarifying jurisdictional rules in areas where jurisdictional conflicts are prone to occur, frequently arise, or remain unclear. In judicial practice, frontline judges have numerous questions about the legal application concerning jurisdiction over civil cases, with thousands of inquiries posted on the Legal Answer Network. To thoroughly study and implement the spirit of the 20th National Congress and the resolutions of successive plenary sessions of the 20th Central Committee, and to carry out the tasks set forth in the “Sixth Five-Year Reform Outline” regarding the optimization of litigation jurisdiction, the Supreme People’s Court conducted a special investigation into jurisdiction issues in non-foreign-related civil cases. Based on requests submitted by relevant Higher People’s Courts and through a systematic review of relevant Q&A entries on the Legal Answer Network, we identified certain issues that frequently give rise to jurisdictional conflicts or remain unclear in judicial practice. Under the strong guidance of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, and after extensive solicitation of opinions and thorough research and deliberation, we formulated the “Reply.”

II. Drafting Principles of the Approval Letter

The drafting of the “Reply” primarily followed these principles:

First, we must adhere to the original intent of the legislation and promote the accurate and uniform application of the law. The “Reply” strictly implements the legislative spirit and provides detailed clarifications on the difficult issues arising from the application of relevant legal provisions in judicial practice. For example, regarding whether parties can, through a written agreement, designate a local people’s court as having jurisdiction over cases that, under the law, can only be handled by specialized people’s courts, this issue involves both a proper understanding of the Civil Procedure Law’s regime on agreed jurisdiction and an accurate interpretation of the laws governing the organization of the people’s courts—particularly those concerning the respective jurisdictions of specialized people’s courts and local people’s courts. In accordance with the original intent of the legislation, the “Reply” offers clear guidance on these issues.

Second, the focus is on addressing prominent issues and providing targeted responses to urgent needs in judicial practice. The "Reply" zeroes in on key issues in jurisdiction over civil cases—particularly those arising from requests submitted by local courts, frequently asked questions on the Legal Answers Platform, and inconsistent interpretations of legal provisions—and conducts thorough research and deliberation to propose practical solutions, thereby actively responding to the pressing demands at the frontline. For example, there has been ongoing debate in judicial practice regarding the validity of jurisdiction agreements when the parties have not explicitly specified a particular court of jurisdiction, yet the jurisdiction can be determined according to law based on the geographic area agreed upon by the parties, combined with factors such as the nature of the case and the amount in dispute. The "Reply" specifically addresses this issue and lays down clear provisions.

Third, we must deepen and effectively implement the principle of judicial service to the people, fully safeguarding the reasonable expectations of the parties involved. In refining jurisdiction rules, the “Reply” not only gives full consideration to the “two-convenience” principle but also fully respects the parties’ autonomy of will, thereby protecting their legitimate expectations. For example, in line with the “two-convenience” principle, the “Reply” further clarifies the jurisdiction rules for disputes arising from liability insurance contracts. Another example is that the “Reply” explicitly states that the invalidity of an arbitration agreement within a “choose arbitration or litigation” clause does not affect the validity of the jurisdiction agreement, thus demonstrating full respect for the parties’ autonomy of will.

Fourth, we must effectively prevent the abuse of rights and uphold the order of civil litigation in accordance with the law. In practice, many parties, in their quest to gain jurisdiction, violate the principle of honesty and good faith by arbitrarily agreeing on courts that have no actual connection to the subject matter of the dispute, thereby disrupting the litigation order, wasting judicial resources, and giving rise to a host of enforcement challenges—issues that have drawn strong complaints from the public. To address this, the "Reply" explicitly stipulates that if a party fails to provide evidence demonstrating that the location specified in the jurisdiction agreement has an actual connection to the dispute, the jurisdiction agreement shall be deemed invalid, thus safeguarding the normal order of litigation in accordance with the law.

III. Main Contents of the Approval Letter

The “Reply” consists of five articles, with the specific contents as follows:

1. If the parties agree to select a location other than the “five locations” as the jurisdictional connecting point, such location must have a genuine connection to the dispute. The parties may, in their jurisdiction agreement, choose a people’s court located in a place other than the five locations explicitly listed in Article 35 of the Civil Procedure Law (the defendant’s domicile, the place of contract performance, the place where the contract was signed, the plaintiff’s domicile, and the location of the subject matter), provided that such location has a genuine connection to the dispute. A jurisdiction agreement shall be invalid if there is no evidence to prove that the selected location has a genuine connection to the dispute.

2. Agreed jurisdiction may not violate specialized jurisdiction. The establishment, organization, and jurisdictional powers of specialized people’s courts are explicitly prescribed by law; parties do not have the right to alter, through a jurisdiction agreement, the division of jurisdictional powers between specialized people’s courts and local people’s courts. If the parties, through a written agreement, stipulate that cases which, according to laws and judicial interpretations, can only be under the jurisdiction of specialized people’s courts shall instead be under the jurisdiction of other people’s courts, such an agreement constitutes an attempt to exclude specialized jurisdiction through a jurisdiction agreement. In such cases, the people’s court shall, in accordance with the law, declare the jurisdiction agreement invalid.

3. Rules for handling cases where the jurisdiction agreement is unclear. If the parties to a jurisdiction agreement have only specified the geographical area of jurisdiction but have not designated a specific court of jurisdiction, and considering the nature of the case and the amount in dispute, it is possible to determine the specific court of jurisdiction based on statutory provisions and judicial interpretations concerning specialized jurisdiction and hierarchical jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction should be determined in accordance with the agreement.

4. In a “choose arbitration or litigation” clause, the invalidity of the arbitration agreement does not affect the validity of the jurisdiction agreement. If the parties agree that the dispute may be submitted either to an arbitration institution for arbitration or to the relevant people’s court for litigation, the arbitration agreement shall be deemed invalid. However, the “choose arbitration or litigation” clause is not entirely invalid. If the parties have made an agreement on the competent court, the validity of such agreement shall be determined in accordance with the law and judicial interpretations.

5. Disputes arising from liability insurance contracts may be under the jurisdiction of the people’s court in the domicile of the insured. Liability insurance is an insurance policy whose subject matter is the insured’s liability for compensation to third parties. In disputes over liability insurance contracts, the domicile of the insured may be regarded as the “location of the insured object” as stipulated in Article 25 of the Civil Procedure Law.

Next, the Supreme People’s Court will continue to conduct in-depth research, focusing on key issues—including areas prone to jurisdictional conflicts, frequent jurisdictional disputes, and cases with unclear jurisdiction—by promptly issuing judicial interpretations, compiling and publishing guiding cases and reference cases, and featuring “Selected Q&A” on the Legal Consultation Platform. Through these efforts, the Court will further strengthen its supervision and guidance over trials, uphold civil litigation order in accordance with the law, better protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved, and provide high-quality judicial services to support high-quality economic and social development.

Legal Interpretation [2025] No. 15

Supreme People's Court

Reply Regarding Certain Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Jurisdiction over Civil Cases

(Adopted at the 1959th Meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on November 24, 2025, and effective as of December 31, 2025)

High People's Courts of all provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the central government; Military Courts of the People's Liberation Army; Branch Court of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region High People's Court—Production and Construction Corps:

Recently, some Higher People's Courts have submitted inquiries to our court regarding the application of law in civil cases—such as contract disputes or other property rights disputes—that do not involve foreign elements. After careful consideration, we hereby issue the following reply:

1. If the parties have, in writing, agreed to submit their dispute to the jurisdiction of a people’s court located in a place other than the defendant’s domicile, the place of contract performance, the place where the contract was signed, the plaintiff’s domicile, or the location of the subject matter, but fail to provide evidence demonstrating that such place has a genuine connection to the dispute, the people’s court shall, in accordance with the law, deem such jurisdiction agreement invalid.

II. If the parties, through a written agreement, agree to transfer jurisdiction over cases that, according to laws and judicial interpretations, can only be under the jurisdiction of specialized people's courts, to another people's court, the people's court shall, in accordance with the law, deem the jurisdiction agreement invalid and determine jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of laws and judicial interpretations regarding the jurisdiction of specialized people's courts.

3. If the jurisdiction agreement between the parties does not explicitly specify a particular court of jurisdiction, but the geographic area agreed upon by the parties, combined with the nature of the case and the amount in dispute, enables the court of jurisdiction to be determined in accordance with the law, the people’s court shall not uphold a party’s claim that the jurisdiction agreement is invalid solely on the ground that it fails to specify a particular court of jurisdiction.

4. If the parties agree that a dispute may be submitted either to an arbitration institution for arbitration or to the relevant people’s court for litigation, the arbitration agreement shall be invalid; however, this shall not affect the validity of the agreement on jurisdiction for litigation. The people’s court may, in accordance with the relevant agreement, determine jurisdiction in compliance with the law.

V. Litigation arising from disputes over liability insurance contracts may be under the jurisdiction of the people's court in the domicile of the insured.

Source: News Bureau of the Supreme People's Court