n 24 April 2023, the Justices of the Supreme Court of Vietnam (the Supreme Court) hosted an online seminar to tackle some issues that arise in the courts’ trial practice. Official Letter no. 196/TANDTC-PC issued by the Supreme Court on 3 October 2023 (the Official Letter) documents the results from the online seminar in April. The Official Letter contains mainly the clarification and interpretation of the Supreme Court of the existing legal provisions across various areas of law, including penal, civil, commercial, and administrative. Although these clarification and interpretation are non-binding, they constitute an important source of interpretation for the court system to rely on.

In this post, we will discuss some clarifications from the Official Letter that we find interesting or noteworthy:

1)         The subjects capable of committing the crime of “Intentional public disclosure of false information or concealment of information in securities activities” (Article 209 of the Penal Code 2015) are the natural persons or commercial legal persons responsible for public disclosure of information regarding securities, and not the parties to a securities transfer transaction.

Our comments:

The clarification for the Supreme Court is not clear since under the securities regulations, sometimes parties to a securities transaction must make public disclosure about the transaction (e.g., sale or purchase of shares by a major/inside shareholder). So it appears that this crime only applies to a person who violate the disclosure obligations under securities regulations but not to a person who fails to disclosure information under its contractual obligations.

In October 2022, the Supreme Court issued Precedent 55/2022 which recognises the validity of an unnotarised contract for transfer of land use right on the basis that two thirds of the contract have been performed and accordingly the contract becomes valid in accordance with Article 129 of the Civil Code 2015. The background of the case is as follows:

· In 2009, the parties signed a contract for transfer of land use right over a piece of land which would be allocated by the Government to the seller in accordance with a land compensation scheme. The contract was not notarised.

· In 2016, the Seller received the land use right certificate for the transferred land. The Buyer also paid around 90% of the sale price. The Buyer also leased the land to a third party.

· However, the Seller later on refused to register the transfer with the authority and claimed that the transfer contract was invalid since it has not been notarised.

In the Precedent 55/2022, the Supreme Court accepts the judgement of the lower court which recognises the validity of the transfer contract on the ground that the parties have performed two-thirds of the contract. Under Article 129.2 of the Civil Code 2015, where the civil transaction established in writing is in breach of compulsory provisions on notarization or certification, and one or more parties have performed at least two-thirds of the obligations in the transaction, the court will, at the request of one or more parties, recognize the validity of such transaction.