NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LEGAL REGIME OF BAILIFFS UNDER THE 2025 AMENDED LAW ON CIVIL JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT
1. The legal regime of bailiffs under civil judgment enforcement law from 1945 to present
At certain historical stages, notable developments can be observed. Under the 1960 regulations, judges not only performed adjudicative functions but also undertook civil judgment enforcement tasks. Subsequently, specialized enforcement officers were established within People’s Courts: “At local People’s Courts, enforcement officers are assigned to execute civil judgments and decisions, as well as compensation and property-related rulings in criminal judgments and decisions.”
The 1989 Ordinance on Civil Judgment Enforcement was the first legal instrument regulating this field, along with the Regulation on Judgment Enforcement Officers (issued together with Decree No. 68/HĐBT dated March 6, 1990 of the Council of Ministers). Under this framework, only judgment enforcement officers were authorized by the State to execute court judgments and decisions (previously, enforcement could also be carried out by other enforcement staff).
Since 1993, the legal system governing civil judgment enforcement has undergone significant reforms, notably the 2008 Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement, which replaced prior ordinances, followed by subsequent amendments, including the 2014 Law amending and supplementing several articles, to meet practical demands and judicial reform requirements.
Bailiff activities constitute part of Vietnam’s judicial support system. After a long absence since the colonial period, bailiff functions were reinstated through Resolution No. 08/NQ-TW (2002) and Resolution No. 49/NQ-TW (2005) on judicial reform strategy.
According to the latest data from the Ministry of Justice, as of March 2025, Vietnam has 417 practicing bailiffs and over 192 bailiff offices nationwide. Compared to other judicial support professions-over 1,400 notarial practice organizations with more than 3,400 notaries, and over 18,000 lawyers across 5,300 law firms-the number of bailiffs remains modest. The 2025 Draft Law proposes expanding bailiffs’ powers and legal status (including a separate chapter on enforcement officers and civil judgment enforcement offices), raising legal and practical concerns such as jurisdictional conflicts and the safeguarding of state authority. Diverging expert opinions and the limited current performance of bailiffs indicate the need for further research and pilot implementation.
This article focuses on analyzing and comparing the organizational and operational models of bailiffs in Vietnam with those in France, the United States, China, and Russia. It thereby evaluates the new provisions of the 2025 Draft Law and proposes recommendations to完善 the legal framework, clarify the role and position of bailiffs, and enhance the effectiveness of civil judgment enforcement in Vietnam in terms of consistency, transparency, and efficiency.
2. New developments in the bailiff regime under the 2025 Draft Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement
As of now, the 2025 Draft Law comprises 5 chapters and 98 articles, structured in line with five policy groups approved by the Government and elaborated in the official explanatory report and related academic workshops organized by the Civil Judgment Enforcement Department under the Ministry of Justice.
2.1. Legal status and organizational model of bailiff offices
Bailiff offices are judicial service entities established by bailiffs in the form of sole proprietorships or partnerships, possessing legal personality, independent seals, headquarters, and bank accounts (financial autonomy). Thus, bailiffs operate under a socialized mechanism (service fee-based) and independently from the state civil judgment enforcement system. Under previous regulations, bailiffs were limited to auxiliary judicial functions such as service of process, preparation of bailiff reports (records of facts), verification of enforcement conditions, and organizing enforcement upon parties’ requests.
Under the draft law, enforcement officers would be granted powers nearly equivalent to those of judgment enforcement officers (except certain state management powers), including authority to organize enforcement of court judgments and apply coercive measures at the request of parties. However:
- This expansion may lead to overlaps in jurisdiction and blur the boundary of public authority between profit-oriented bailiff organizations and state enforcement agencies.
- Granting such powers may also conflict with constitutional principles that (i) all state power belongs to the People, and (ii) such power is exercised through state organs. In other words, the reform raises the question of whether delegating coercive powers-traditionally exercised by state officials-to private actors under the banner of “socialization” is constitutionally sound. It also creates inconsistencies when compared to other judicial support professions (lawyers, notaries), which provide legal services without exercising public authority.
2.2. Conditions for appointment of bailiffs
The draft law does not introduce changes to the conditions for appointing enforcement officers.
2.3. Powers and scope of activities
Under Articles 36 - 39 of Decree No. 08/2020/NĐ-CP, bailiffs perform four main functions: preparation of bailiff reports, service of documents, verification of enforcement conditions, and organization of enforcement. They are not authorized to apply security or coercive measures under the 2008 Law (amended 2014), as such powers are reserved for judgment enforcement officers.
However, under the 2025 Draft Law, enforcement officers would be granted powers comparable to judgment enforcement officers, including:
- Organizing enforcement and issuing enforcement decisions at the request of parties;
- Conducting procedures to ensure lawful interests of relevant parties;
- Summoning and requesting provision of information and documents;
- Applying security and coercive measures, including seizure of assets;
- Requesting support from security forces when necessary.
Nonetheless, certain limitations remain: enforcement officers cannot impose administrative sanctions, use support tools, and must obtain approval from competent state authorities before mobilizing forces for coercive measures.
The Head of a Civil Judgment Enforcement Office (formerly Head of a Bailiff Office) is assigned powers and responsibilities similar to those of a head of a state enforcement agency, except for issuing enforcement decisions and handling complaints, denunciations, and administrative sanctions.
It is evident that the draft law significantly expands the powers of bailiffs, reflecting a trend toward delegating public authority to private entities.
Supporters of these reforms, such as Mr. Ho Quan Chinh (Judicial Academy, Ho Chi Minh City campus), argue that expanding bailiffs’ authority aligns with international practices, reduces state budget burdens, and provides more service options. Similarly, Dr. Nguyen Van Tien (Ho Chi Minh City University of Law) contends that empowering bailiffs helps alleviate the workload of enforcement agencies.
However, experts also warn of limitations in bailiffs’ professional capacity and emphasize the need for strict oversight mechanisms. The elevation of bailiffs’ legal status to a level comparable with judgment enforcement officers remains controversial due to concerns over jurisdictional conflicts and safeguarding state authority. According to Deputy Minister of Justice Nguyen Thanh Tu, the draft law is considering two options regarding coercive powers. Associate Professor Dr. Dinh Dung Sy (former Director General of the Legal Department, Government Office) argues that bailiffs should not be granted full coercive authority, as “coercion is an exercise of state power and should only be carried out by competent state authorities” - a view also supported by our law firm.