Việt Nam's Courts Get a Freedom-of-Information Rulebook: Thông tư 16/2026/TT-TANDTC Takes Effect on 1 October

When Việt Nam’s rewritten Access to Information Law took effect on 1 September 2026 (we covered it here), one obvious question was left hanging: how does it apply to the courts? The judiciary is not part of the Government, so a Government decree cannot tell judges how to answer information requests. The answer arrives on 1 October 2026, when Thông tư 16/2026/TT-TANDTC of the Supreme People’s Court (Tòa án nhân dân tối cao) takes effect. It is short (12 articles), but it sets out what courts must publish, how anyone can ask a court for information over the Internet, and how fast the court has to reply.

What the document is

Number and title: Thông tư số 16/2026/TT-TANDTC quy định về công khai hoạt động của Tòa án nhân dân (on the disclosure of the activities of the People’s Courts).
Issued by: the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court (Chánh án Tòa án nhân dân tối cao), Nguyễn Văn Quảng, on the proposal of the Director of the Department of Legal Affairs and Science Management (Vụ Pháp chế và Quản lý khoa học).
Signed: 10 September 2026 (Hà Nội).
Effective: 1 October 2026 (Điều 12).
Legal bases: Luật Tổ chức Tòa án nhân dân số 34/2024/QH15, as amended by Luật 81/2025, 106/2025, 116/2025, 142/2025 and 150/2025/QH15; and Luật Tiếp cận thông tin số 01/2026/QH16.
Scope: every People’s Court and every unit of the Supreme People’s Court. Military courts follow it too, unless the law or the Ministry of National Defence provides otherwise (Điều 2).

What courts must publish

Article 5 splits disclosure into two lists.

Adjudication. Information on accepted cases (thụ lý) across criminal, administrative, civil, family, business, commercial and labour matters; bankruptcy and business-recovery cases; administrative-measure cases heard in court; compulsory drug-rehabilitation decisions for people aged 12 to under 18; recognition of successful mediation and dialogue at court; petitions for cassation and reopening review (giám đốc thẩm, tái thẩm); hearing schedules; courtroom rules; and judgments and decisions that have taken legal effect, except where the law forbids publication.

The first three items (case acceptance, cassation petitions and hearing information) are disclosed to the people conducting and taking part in the proceedings and to others entitled under procedural law. Courtroom rules and final judgments are disclosed to the general public (Điều 4).

Everything else a court does. The second list covers 14 headings: information about the court itself, citizen reception, judicial administrative procedures, drafting of legal documents, precedent (án lệ) development, personnel, finance, inspection, awards, international cooperation, the Court Academy, science management and legal education.

How it works online

This is the tech-law part of the circular. Article 6 names the publication channels, starting with the court’s electronic portal, websites, data portals, official channels and community pages, and shared digital platforms and applications, before mass media, the Official Gazette, the national legal database and notices posted at the courthouse.

Article 7 is the change most people will notice. A person or organisation, directly or through a representative, can request information:

in person at the court,
by post, or
over the Internet: by email, through the court’s portal or website, a data portal, the National Public Service Portal (Cổng Dịch vụ công quốc gia), a mobile app, or another digital platform the court announces.

Article 7(2) adds that someone requesting information at the courthouse may use their own phone or other personal device to copy, photograph or download documents and files, unless another law says otherwise. It is a small clause, but it is the kind of detail that changes everyday practice at the reception desk.

Article 11(3) makes the Supreme People’s Court’s Department of Information Technology (Cục Công nghệ thông tin) responsible for the technical infrastructure, information security and upkeep of the “disclosure system in the digital environment”. Court offices, from the Supreme Court’s own Văn phòng down to the regional courts (Tòa án nhân dân khu vực), are the designated points for receiving requests.

Deadlines and refusals

12 days from receipt of a valid request to provide the information. The court may extend this by up to 12 more days, with written notice sent within the original period (Điều 8). This matches the deadline in Article 26 of the 2026 Access to Information Law.
Refusals must be in writing and give reasons. Article 9 allows only four grounds: the information breaches the Article 3 principles or falls outside the Article 5 lists; it is not the court’s to provide; it has already been provided twice to the same requester (unless they have a good reason); or the request exceeds the court’s capacity or disrupts its normal work.
Corrections. A court that finds it gave wrong or incomplete information must correct it within 5 working days of finding out. A requester who disputes what they received can demand a check, and the court must answer within 10 days (Điều 10).

Article 3 sets the limits. Disclosure may not infringe national interests, state, investigative, work, professional or business secrets, private life, personal and family secrets, personal data, or the protection of minors. Internal court meetings and internal working documents are never disclosed. Information obtained through disclosure may not be used for unlawful purposes.

Who is affected and what it means in practice

Litigants and their lawyers gain a formal, dated route for checking case-acceptance status and hearing schedules online, instead of phone calls and repeat visits. A missed 12-day deadline is now a breach of a written rule, not just slow service.
Businesses doing counterparty due diligence (bankruptcy filings, commercial disputes) can send structured written requests and expect a written answer, either the information or a reasoned refusal.
Journalists and researchers get a clear list of publishable court administration data (finance, personnel, inspection, legislative drafting) and the right to photograph documents they are shown.
Courts need a working intake channel on the Internet from 1 October, a request log to spot the “provided twice” refusal ground, and a process for redacting personal data. That last point matters because Article 3 explicitly names dữ liệu cá nhân, which links court disclosure to the personal-data protection regime.

Open questions

No repeal clause. Article 12 does not repeal or replace anything. Publication of judgments on the court portal has been governed since 2017 by Nghị quyết 03/2017/NQ-HĐTP of the Council of Judges. The circular says that the form and timing of disclosure follow “relevant law” where it exists (Điều 6 k3), which suggests the 2017 resolution’s detailed rules on publishing judgments continue alongside it. The text does not say so directly.
No forms, no fees. Unlike many circulars, this one attaches no request template and says nothing about copying costs. Those are presumably left to the 2026 law and its guidance.
“Beyond the court’s capacity” (Điều 9 k4) is an open-ended refusal ground. How often it is used, especially by small regional courts, will show whether the 12-day deadline has real force.
Which digital platforms count depends on each court announcing its channels. The circular itself does not list any court email address or request app, so how quickly the online route works in practice after 1 October depends on those announcements.

Sources

This post is general information, not legal advice.