ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS OF BAILIFFS AROUND THE WORLD AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VIETNAM
1. Current practice of bailiff activities in Vietnam
As of March 31, 2025, there are more than 192 Bailiff Offices and 417 practicing bailiffs operating in 45 out of 63 provinces and cities nationwide. However, their activities remain very limited compared to population size and social demand. According to reports, by 2024, bailiff offices had only verified enforcement conditions in 23 cases and directly organized enforcement in 32 cases. This corresponds to approximately three years of implementing Decree No. 08/2020 (from October 2019 to September 2022), during which only 12 cases were verified and 26 enforcement decisions were executed (including 14 decisions in the first year). At the same time, bailiffs served approximately 6,765 civil judgment enforcement documents during the first three years of implementation. These figures demonstrate that the scale and effectiveness of bailiff participation remain modest compared to the overall civil judgment enforcement system.
Regulations relating to bailiffs have been amended and supplemented in the 2025 Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement to address practical shortcomings. However, these new provisions also present limitations that require careful consideration to avoid inconsistencies between legal theory and enforcement practice, including:
- Advantages: Bailiffs represent a socialized force supporting civil judgment enforcement, offering several practical benefits. Delegating part of enforcement activities to bailiffs helps significantly reduce the workload of courts and state enforcement agencies. Individuals and organizations also gain greater autonomy by contracting with Bailiff Offices instead of relying solely on state channels, thereby increasing flexibility and convenience. Moreover, expanding authority and applying digital technology are expected to reduce state budget expenditures and enhance transparency and efficiency in enforcement.
- Disadvantages: Bailiff activities under the new framework are expected to face both subjective and objective challenges. Legally, there is still no dedicated law, and existing regulations remain inadequate, making it difficult for bailiffs to exercise public authority. In practice, the network of offices is limited and unevenly distributed (mainly concentrated in Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, and pilot localities). Bailiffs are relatively new and generally less experienced than judgment enforcement officers, with limited enforcement skills. Public and business awareness remains low, with most users only utilizing bailiff services for recording facts (vi bằng), while few request enforcement verification or organization through bailiffs. Trust in bailiffs has not yet reached the level of state enforcement agencies. Additionally, service fees are sometimes considered unreasonable, and contracting enforcement services with bailiffs remains unfamiliar. These factors hinder the effective utilization of bailiffs in civil judgment enforcement.
2. Comparison of bailiff organizational models in Vietnam and selected countries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Recommendations for the bailiff mechanism in Vietnam, particularly under the 2025 Draft Law
3.1. Clarifying the legal status of bailiffs
Bailiffs should be clearly defined as a legal service institution supporting enforcement agencies, rather than “private enforcement officers” with full coercive powers. Coercive measures should remain the prerogative of state officials to ensure constitutionality and unified state authority, while bailiffs may be granted expanded roles in less sensitive areas.
3.2. Improving the legal framework
Granting greater autonomy to Bailiff Offices can help reduce the burden on state enforcement agencies, but requires strong professional capacity and strict supervision. Compared to other legal professions (notaries, lawyers, auctioneers), bailiff regulations remain underdeveloped and lack a dedicated law. A comprehensive legal framework aligned with international standards is therefore necessary.
3.3. Developing a professional workforce
3.4. Enhancing public awareness and rationalizing service costs to ensure accessibility
3.5. Diversifying services and digitalizing operations
3.6. Strengthening governance, supervision, and sanctions mechanisms