It is necessary to issue a decree on litigation costs.

Create a synchronous legal basis

Presenting the proposal for the Litigation Costs Ordinance, Deputy Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court Nguyen Van Tien emphasized the necessity of issuing the Litigation Costs Ordinance.

Clarifying the legal status of litigation costs, Deputy Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court Nguyen Van Tien said that Ordinance No. 02/2012/UBTVQH13 was issued to specify the 2004 Civil Procedure Code, the 2003 Criminal Procedure Code, and the 2010 Administrative Procedure Law, so some provisions of this Ordinance are not consistent with current legal provisions; some provisions are not detailed and are no longer suitable for current economic and social conditions.

There are currently no detailed regulations on the costs of on-site examination and appraisal in civil and administrative proceedings; and costs for witnesses and translators in criminal proceedings.

Regarding the costs for defense counsel in case of appointing a defense counsel, current law only regulates specifically for lawyers and legal aid officers, and has no regulations for people's defense counsel.

In addition, the practical application of the law on litigation costs is facing some difficulties and problems such as: The level of payment for the Jury is still low, not encouraging the Jury to participate in the performance of the trial task. The calculation of advance payment, the order and procedures for collection, the collection level, the level of payment for on-site examination and appraisal costs are not yet unified; some costs arising in appraisal activities are not yet regulated by law...

Therefore, Deputy Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court Nguyen Van Tien affirmed that the development and promulgation of the Ordinance on Litigation Costs is necessary.

Deputy Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court Nguyen Van Tien said that the draft ordinance consists of 92 articles and 13 chapters. Regarding the scope of the draft ordinance, the draft ordinance stipulates litigation costs in civil proceedings, administrative proceedings, criminal proceedings and in the procedure for considering and deciding on sending drug addicts from 12 to under 18 years old to compulsory drug rehabilitation facilities; applying administrative handling measures prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code, Administrative Procedure Law, Ordinance No. 01/2022/UBTVQH15, Ordinance No. 03/2022/UBTVQH15.

Regarding the exemption and reduction of on-site review and appraisal costs, the draft ordinance basically inherits the provisions on exemption and reduction of appraisal costs of Ordinance No. 02/2012/UBTVQH13, and at the same time adds exemption and reduction of on-site review and appraisal costs similar to appraisal costs; adds a number of exempted subjects (elderly people; disabled people; people with revolutionary contributions; etc.); amends the case of reduction to be people who encounter force majeure events leading to not having enough assets to pay. The addition of these provisions has demonstrated the humane policy of the State, ensuring the right to initiate a lawsuit of the subjects participating in the proceedings.

Regarding specific litigation costs, the draft ordinance stipulates costs for on-site examination and appraisal, costs for asset valuation, appraisal costs, costs for jurors, costs for lawyers, legal assistants, and people's defenders in cases where a defense attorney or representative is appointed by the Court, costs for witnesses, witnesses, costs for interpreters and translators, costs for issuing, serving, and notifying litigation documents, costs for judicial entrustment abroad, and other litigation costs.

The content of the draft ordinance ensures consistency with the Party's viewpoints, policies and guidelines and the State's policies on building a socialist rule-of-law state, judicial reform and wage policy reform.

In addition, Deputy Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court Nguyen Van Tien reported to the National Assembly Standing Committee on a number of issues with different opinions, such as trial allowances for jurors and remuneration costs for people receiving salaries from the State budget to participate in litigation activities.

Ensuring the feasibility and consistency of the legal system

On behalf of the agency reviewing the project of the Ordinance on Litigation Costs, Chairwoman of the Judicial Committee Le Thi Nga affirmed: The Judicial Committee agrees with the necessity of promulgating the Ordinance on Litigation Costs for the reasons stated in the submission of the Supreme People's Court, in order to implement the provisions of Article 169 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Article 370 of the Administrative Procedure Law (APL) and to remove difficulties in the practical implementation of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) on litigation costs, contributing significantly to ensuring conditions for litigation activities to be conducted promptly and effectively.

Regarding the scope of regulation of the Ordinance (Article 1): The majority of opinions of the Judicial Committee agree with the scope of regulation stipulated in Article 1 of the draft Ordinance, including costs in all three areas of litigation as prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code, the Law on Administrative Procedures and the Criminal Procedure Code.

National Assembly Chairman Vuong Dinh Hue emphasized that the unity of the legal system is a very important issue. Therefore, he requested that the drafting and reviewing agencies continue to work carefully to present the National Assembly Standing Committee at the next session.

The National Assembly Chairman said that Decree 02/2012/UBTVQH13 on appraisal and valuation costs, and costs for witnesses and interpreters in litigation was issued in 2012. The State Budget Law was amended and supplemented in 2014 and took effect from 2015.

Thus, Decree 02/2012/UBTVQH13 was issued before the current State Budget Law. Decree 02/2012/UBTVQH13 clearly stipulates 4 types of costs, and at the same time has the principle that costs are implemented according to the provisions of this Decree and relevant laws. Decree 02 also clearly states the scope but not all litigation costs. Therefore, it is recommended to carefully study the content of this Decree.

The National Assembly Chairman raised the question of why the Civil Procedure Law and the Administrative Procedure Law assign the National Assembly Standing Committee to regulate litigation costs, but the Criminal Procedure Code does not. According to international experience, the costs of criminal proceedings are guaranteed by the State because the State is the only entity responsible and obligated to prove that individuals and legal entities are guilty, and the State ensures the budget to carry out this task.

The most common problems in criminal proceedings are the costs of forensic examination and property valuation, which should be resolved in specialized laws on forensic examination, valuation, and state budget estimates of litigation agencies.

The National Assembly Chairman expressed his support for any costs to ensure the operations of the prosecution agencies to be maximally ensured in accordance with legal regulations, authority, and international experience.

The National Assembly Chairman also noted the feasibility of this draft ordinance. The National Assembly Chairman stated that, according to the provisions of the Law on Promulgation of Legal Documents, the ordinance does not authorize another agency to specify the details of the ordinance's instructions.

However, in practice, to be able to spend, there must be regulations on spending norms, spending standards, and correct spending methods... Should this ordinance only regulate the types of spending, and the spending levels will be determined by specialized laws and require relevant agencies and organizations to regulate spending levels and then make specific spending estimates?

The National Assembly Chairman requested the Government, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Justice, and the prosecution agencies to give their opinions on this draft Ordinance.

The National Assembly Chairman emphasized the spirit of creating maximum conditions for the judiciary and prosecution agencies to perform their duties in accordance with their functions and authority, while ensuring the feasibility and consistency of the legal system. The content of the ordinance is regulated according to the assigned authority.

Considering that the issues raised by the National Assembly Chairman are very large, Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court Nguyen Hoa Binh further reported on the issue of assigning tasks to the Civil Procedure Code and the Administrative Procedure Law and assigned the National Assembly Standing Committee to provide guidance.

However, Chief Justice Nguyen Hoa Binh said that the Criminal Procedure Code does not assign guidance to the National Assembly Standing Committee, so it is not based on the National Assembly's resolution to build this ordinance, but according to legal tradition, Ordinance No. 2 has responded to this for many years and in reality, if it is not regulated, it will be stuck in the present and even more stuck in the future.

In the Criminal Procedure Code, Article 135, Clause 4, Section c, there are provisions on other costs, however, Chief Justice Nguyen Hoa Binh noted that we currently have no guidance on other costs. Meanwhile, in reality, other costs are increasingly large.

“For example, in online fraud cases, the victims are tens of thousands of people. If we serve documents to tens of thousands of victims, it will be very difficult for the investigation agency and the Procuracy. These are other costs in practice and are increasing in number and complexity. The police and the Procuracy cannot plan how many online fraud cases there will be this year. This is also a practical problem. If we do not do it, it will be very difficult,” the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court cited.

Therefore, Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court Nguyen Hoa Binh suggested that it is necessary to stipulate additional costs in this draft ordinance. If other costs arise in practice, they will continue to be reported to the National Assembly Standing Committee.

Chief Justice Nguyen Hoa Binh realized that if there were no additional regulations, there would be many practical problems, so he hoped that the National Assembly Standing Committee would support it.

Concluding the discussion, Vice Chairman of the National Assembly Nguyen Khac Dinh requested the Judiciary Committee to coordinate with the Supreme People's Court and relevant agencies to continue researching, organizing meetings, seminars, etc., especially coordinating with the Institute of Legislative Studies to invite experts to provide additional opinions on this content.

Vice Chairman of the National Assembly Nguyen Khac Dinh said that the spirit of the National Assembly Standing Committee agreed to support the promulgation of the new Ordinance with the most comprehensive and comprehensive regulations on litigation costs to create the best conditions for judicial agencies and litigation agencies to perform their duties, while creating conditions for people, citizens and related organizations to implement.

However, Vice Chairman of the National Assembly Nguyen Khac Dinh noted that it is necessary to continue explaining to the National Assembly Standing Committee about the scope and name of the draft Ordinance. “These contents need to be explained very fully, with the right authority, correct procedures, and correct order, and must solve the practical problems that are being raised as directed by the Chairman of the National Assembly in order to create the best conditions, regulate in the most complete way according to the authority of the prosecution agencies, judicial agencies and facilitate people and businesses in organizing implementation.”, Vice Chairman of the National Assembly Nguyen Khac Dinh stated.