Tracking new legislation and policy — concise notes on the points that matter, from PSSLEGAL's practice.
Circular 12/2026/TT-TANDTC effectively prohibits bringing phones and computers into courtrooms unless the presiding judge grants permission. This analysis explains why the ban is wrong at its foundation: it targets the device rather than the conduct that creates the risk, reverses a presumption of freedom into a permission-seeking mechanism, and vests unchecked discretionary power in the presiding officer.
Read more →Chuyên khảo nghiên cứu: blockchain, định danh số và khả năng hình thành một nền kinh tế dựa trên mạng lưới con người đã được xác minh. Không cổ động cũng không phủ nhận Pi Network — mục tiêu là dựng một hệ chỉ số kiểm chứng được để đánh giá liệu cộng đồng, hạ tầng và token có thực sự chuyển hóa thành một nền kinh tế. Khung theo dõi và dự báo đến năm 2030.
Read more →Tài liêu này mang tính phổ thông, được đúc kết trong quá trình tư vấn, giải quyết các hồ sơ liên quan đến thủ tục thu hồi đất. Mục đích là giúp người dân tìm hiểu một hồ sơ đất đai theo đúng trình tự pháp lý: trước hết xác định quyền của mình đối với thửa đất đang sử dụng; sau đó kiểm tra rõ việc thực hiện các thủ tục thu hồi đất có đúng căn cứ thu hồi hay không; cuối cùng đối chiếu từng bước về thông báo, kiểm đếm, phương án bồi thường, tái định cư, chi trả, bàn giao và cưỡng chế. Bản rà soát, hiệu chỉnh độc lập của Công ty Luật TNHH PSSLEGAL — cập nhật đến ngày 01/07/2026.
Read more →1 July 2026 marks an exceptionally significant legal effective date: 29 new laws take effect simultaneously, bringing in their wake a series of implementing Decrees and Circulars — spanning salary, pensions, social insurance, tax, public employees, construction, e-commerce, digital transformation, the press, cybersecurity, population, enforcement of judgments, and the special mechanisms applicable to the capital city of Hanoi. The most noteworthy aspect lies not in any single instrument but in the fact that multiple pillars of state governance are being replaced at the same time. This UPDATE reorganises all information according to that precise logic — by axis of impact, with specific figures, a complete list of all 29 laws, and recommended immediate actions for each group of stakeholders.
Read more →Abstract. This article analyses the mechanism for collecting land-use levies when households and individuals convert agricultural land to residential land in Vietnam, particularly after the Land Law 2024 abolished the land-price framework and land-price tables were brought close to market levels. The central argument does not concern whether the State has the right to recapture a portion of the increment in land value — that right is legitimate and widespread — but rather a categorical error: the procedure for registering a change of land use is, in itself, an ordinary administrative act, yet Vietnamese law attaches to it a charge approximating the entire difference between two ways in which the State itself values the same plot of land, and makes payment of that charge a condition for recognising a right that the land user already holds. The article identifies the charge under four possible legal characterisations and shows that it submits to the discipline of none of them; demonstrates that the charge is triggered by a reclassification operation applied to a physically unchanged object, and that the State has an obligation to acknowledge the citizen's compliance rather than to resell a right to them; evaluates the mechanism through the lens of property rights, the principle of proportionality, and equity; and then compares it with the spectrum of land-value-increment recapture in the United States, Germany, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. The survey shows that every jurisdiction examined either collects only a calibrated portion, or collects upon realisation of value, or separates the charge from the grant of permission; and that the only jurisdiction ever to collect nearly the entire increment as a condition of granting permission failed and abolished the measure. Vietnam is therefore an exception both in degree and in category. Keywords: land-use levy; change of land use purpose; land-value increment recapture; land-use rights; principle of proportionality; legal characterisation. Methodological note. The article argues from the structure and consequences of the mechanism — matters that are demonstrable — rather than imputing subjective legislative intent, which is both difficult to prove and unnecessary for the conclusion. Comparative references are cited to the extent verified by the author; certain percentage figures relating to South Korea, Germany, and the United States are presented at the level of principle and should be checked against up-to-date primary sources before formal publication.
Read more →This UPDATE has been compiled to help people clearly understand the rights they hold in relation to land, particularly in the two most commonly encountered situations: when using and disposing of their own land parcel, and when the State initiates land recovery. The document is presented on the following principle: each right is explained in plain language, accompanied by specific statutory references so that members of the public and lawyers can look them up, together with a practical note on what should be done to protect that right. *Important notice:* *This document is intended as general guidance only. Each land matter has its own particular facts; members of the public should therefore cross-reference against their specific file and consult directly with a lawyer before making any decision.* *Land law is currently undergoing extensive amendment (the two-tier local government model, new decrees and resolutions for 2025–2026). Part VI sets out separately the changes that require special attention.*
Read more →