Convention on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters

Parties with reservations, declarations and objections

Party	Reservations / Declarations	Objections
Andorra	Yes	No
Argentina	Yes	No
Australia	Yes	No
Austria	Yes	No
Azerbaijan	Yes	No
Belgium	Yes	No
Botswana	Yes	No
Brazil	Yes	No
Bulgaria	Yes	No
Canada	Yes	No
China	Yes	No
Colombia	Yes	No
Croatia	Yes	No
Cyprus	Yes	No
Czech Republic	Yes	No
Czechoslovakia (<01-01-1993)	Yes	No
Denmark	Yes	No
Egypt	Yes	No
El Salvador	Yes	No
Estonia	Yes	No
Finland	Yes	No
France	Yes	No
Georgia	Yes	No
Germany	Yes	No
Greece	Yes	No
Hungary	Yes	No
Iceland	Yes	No
India	Yes	No
Ireland	Yes	No
Israel	Yes	No
Italy	Yes	No
Japan	Yes	No
Kazakhstan	Yes	No
Kuwait	Yes	No
Latvia	Yes	No
Lithuania	Yes	No
Luxembourg	Yes	No
Malta	Yes	No
Marshall Islands	Yes	No
Mexico	Yes	No
Moldova	Yes	No
Monaco	Yes	No
Montenegro	Yes	No
Netherlands, the Kingdom of the	Yes	No
Nicaragua	Yes	No
North Macedonia	Yes	No
Norway	Yes	No
Pakistan	Yes	No
Paraguay	Yes	No
Philippines	Yes	No
Poland	Yes	No
Portugal	Yes	No
Republic of Korea, the	Yes	No
Romania	Yes	No
Russian Federation	Yes	No
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	Yes	No
San Marino	Yes	No
Serbia	Yes	No
Seychelles	Yes	No
Singapore	Yes	No
Slovakia	Yes	No
Slovenia	Yes	No
Spain	Yes	Yes
Sri Lanka	Yes	No
Sweden	Yes	No
Switzerland	Yes	No
Tunisia	Yes	No
Türkiye	Yes	No
Ukraine	Yes	No
United Kingdom	Yes	No
United States of America	Yes	No
Venezuela	Yes	No
Vietnam	Yes	No

Andorra

26-04-2017

In accordance with the provisions of Article 21, the Principality of Andorra declares:
a) The Ministry of Justice is the Central Authority provided for in Article 2 and the authority competent to receive the documents forwarded through the diplomatic or consular channels according to Article 9:
Postal address:
Ministry of Social Affairs, Justice and Interior
Edifici Administratiu de l'Obac
Ctra. de l'Obac
AD700 Escaldes-Engordany
Principality of Andorra
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

b) In accordance with Article 6, the authority competent to complete the certificate of service of the document is the judicial authority competent to serve the document.
c) The Principality of Andorra declares that, in accordance with Article 8, it is opposed to the service of documents effected directly by the diplomatic or consular agents of the Contracting States on persons who are not nationals of those States.
d) With regard to Article 15, paragraph 2, the Principality of Andorra declares that the judge may give judgment even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received, if all the provision of Article 15, paragraph 2, are fulfilled.
e) With regard to Article 16, paragraph 3, the Principality of Andorra declares that an application for relief will no longer be entertained if it is filed after the expiration of more than 1 year following the date of the judgment.

Argentina

02-02-2001

1. To Article 5, third paragraph:
The Argentine Republic shall not accept documents to be served or transmitted unless they are accompanied by a translation into the Spanish language.
3. To Article 21, second paragraph, a):
The Argentine Republic opposes to the use of methods of transmission pursuant to Article 10.
4. To Article 21, second paragraph b):
The Argentine Government accepts declarations pursuant to second paragraph of Article 15 and third paragraph of Article 16.
5. The Argentine Republic rejects the claimed extension of application of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, adopted at The Hague on November 14, 1965, to the Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands as notified on May 20, 1970 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Kingdom of the Netherlands as Depositary of the Convention under the "Falkland Islands and dependencies" inaccurate denomination. Therefore, the Argentine Republic similarly rejects the designation of the "Registrar of the Supreme Court" in the Malvinas Islands as application authority of this Convention which was made on that same opportunity, as well as any other act derived or that may be derived from this claimed territorial extension.
The General Assembly of the United Nations has recognized the existence of a dispute on the Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands sovereignty and has urged the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to hold negotiations in order to find, as soon as possible, a peaceful and definite solution to such dispute, with United Nations Secretary General's good offices mediation, who shall inform the General Assembly about the progress made (Resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25). The Special Committee on Decolonization having equally declared, has annually adopted a resolution which proclaims that to put and end to this colonial situation the negotiations must be resumed in order to peacefully and definitely solve this sovereignty dispute. The last of these resolutions was adopted on July 1, 1999.
The Argentine Republic reaffirms its sovereignty on the Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and its maritime surrounding areas which are an integral part of its national territory.

Australia

12-08-2010

(...) the Government of Australia makes the following declarations under the Convention:
Article 5, paragraph 3 - translation requirements
Documents forwarded for service under a method prescribed in Article 5(a) and (b) must be written in or translated into English. A translation is not required where an addressee voluntarily accepts service of documents in another language and the Central or Additional Authority to which it was sent has no objection. In this circumstance, the Letter of Request must confirm that the documents forwarded for service are duly certified.
Article 8 - Australia does not object to service upon a national who is not from the requesting State.
Article 9 - The requirements set out in Articles 3 and 5 regarding use of the model form and translation apply for service via indirect consular channels.
Article 10, paragraph a - service by postal channels
Australia does not object to service by postal channels, where it is permitted in the jurisdiction in which the process is to be served. Documents forwarded via postal channels must be sent via registered mail to enable acknowledgement of receipt.
Article 15, paragraph 2 - default judgments
Australia accepts that a default judgment may be awarded against a defendant even if no evidence of service had been provided, if all of the conditions outlined in Article 15, paragraph 2, are satisfied.
Article 16, paragraph 3 - relief from expiration of time for appeal
An application for relief by a defendant from the effects of the expiration of the time to appeal will not be entertained if it is filed after the expiration of one year following the date of the judgment, except where it is determined otherwise by the Court seized by the matter.
Article 17 - The requesting State must bear responsibility for costs incurred in the employment of a competent officer for the service of extrajudicial documents in Australia.
Article 29 - external territories
The Convention shall extend to all the States and Territories of Australia including external territories.

Austria

14-07-2020

Reservation:
The Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of 15 November 1965 shall not apply to the service of documents addressed to the Republic of Austria, including its political subdivisions, its authorities and persons acting on its behalf; such service shall be effected through diplomatic channels.
Declarations:
Declaration pursuant to Article 5 para. 3 (language of the transmitted documents):
Austria declares that formal service will only be effected by the Central Authority if the document to be served is written in or translated into the German language.
Declarations pursuant to Article 21:
Opposition to the use of methods of transmission pursuant to Article 8 para. 2 and Article 10:
Austria objects to the service of documents effected directly through foreign diplomatic or consular agents within its territory, as proposed in Article 8 para. 1, unless the document is to be served upon a national of the state in which the documents originate.
Austria objects to the methods of service set out in Article 10 within its territory.
Declarations pursuant to Article 15 para. 2 and Article 16 para. 3 (judgment without certificate of service, period for the application for relief):
Austria declares that a judge may give judgment even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received if the conditions set out in Article 15 para. 2 of the Convention are fulfilled.
Pursuant to Article 16 para. 3 of the Convention, Austria declares that the application for relief will not be entertained if it is filed after one year following the date of the judgment.

Azerbaijan

17-02-2023

3. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Convention, documents to be served within the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan shall only be accepted if they have been written in the Azerbaijani language or are accompanied by a duly certified translation into the Azerbaijani language.
4. It is desirable that the documents intended to be served to the Republic of Azerbaijan, to the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, to the First Vice-President and Vice-Presidents of the Republic of Azerbaijan, to the Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan are transmitted in a diplomatic manner, i.e. by Verbal Notes through diplomatic representatives accredited in the Republic of Azerbaijan.
5. The certificate stating that the documents have been served, pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention, shall be completed and certified by the courts of the Republic of Azerbaijan directly executing the request for service of documents.
6. In accordance with Article 8 of the Convention, diplomatic and consular agents of foreign States are not entitled to effect the service of documents in the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan, unless the documents are to be served only upon nationals of the State, which they represent.
7. Service of documents in the manner prescribed in Article 10 is not permitted in the Republic of Azerbaijan.
8. The position of the Republic of Azerbaijan is that in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention, the service of judicial documents incoming from a Participating State shall not give rise to any payment or reimbursement of duties or costs for the services rendered by the State requested. However, the costs occasioned by the use of a particular method of service, noted in subparagraph b) of paragraph 2 of that Article, shall be paid by the applicant.
9. In accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the courts of the Republic of Azerbaijan have the right to give judgment pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Convention.
10. The provisions of the present Convention will not be applied by the Republic of Azerbaijan in respect of the Republic of Armenia until the consequences of the conflict are completely eliminated and relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan are normalized.

Belgium

19-11-1970

3. The Government of Belgium is opposed to the service of judicial documents on Belgian territory as provided for in article 8, paragraph 1;
4. The Government of Belgium declares that it will act in accordance with the provision in article 15, paragraph 2;
5. In accordance with article 16, paragraph 3, the Government of Belgium declares that the applications referred to in article 16, paragraph 2 will not be entertained if filed after the expiration of one year following the date of the judgment;
6. The Government of Belgium wishes to draw attention to the fact that any application for service filed in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1, (a) or (b), shall require the intervention of a judicial officer and that the ensuing costs for services rendered must be reimbursed in accordance with article 12 of the Convention.

19-03-2019

The current declaration no. 6 of the Kingdom of Belgium is replaced with the following declaration:
6. The Government of Belgium wishes to draw attention to the fact that any request for service filed in accordance with article 5, first paragraph, (a) or (b), requires the intervention of a judicial officer and that, in accordance with article 12, the applicant must pay €165 (including Belgian VAT) in advance for every document served on and intended for a natural or legal person. This payment must be made directly through a bank or financial institution in Belgium approved by the applicant’s country; bank charges are to be borne by the applicant. If the VAT of the State of origin is applied to the costs of service under international regulations on value added tax, the judicial officer will reimburse any overpayment. Once it has received the application, the Belgian Central Authority will inform the applicant of the bank account to which the payment must be made and the file reference number to be quoted in communications. The applicant’s submission of proof of payment to the Belgian Central Authority will enable the effective transmission of the request for service to a judicial officer with territorial jurisdiction.
The above rules concerning the payment amount, its prior transfer and the reimbursement of any overpayment also apply to service effected under article 10 (b) and (c).

The current practical information of the Kingdom of Belgium regarding the translation requirements set out in article 5, third paragraph of the Convention, is replaced with the following practical information:
Regarding the translation requirements set out in article 5, third paragraph of the Convention, the Government of Belgium wishes to draw attention to the fact that the Belgian Central Authority requires a judicial document that is to be served pursuant to article 5, first paragraph, (a) or (b), to be written in or translated into the official language or one of the official languages of the place where it is to be served (i.e. a Dutch-speaking region, a French-speaking region, the Brussels Capital region or a German-speaking region). The addressee’s postal code can be used to determine the language into which the document should be translated, viz.:
-1000 to 1299 in French or Dutch;
-1300 to 1499 in French;
-1500 to 3999 in Dutch;
-4000 to 4699 in French;
-4700 to 4799 in German;
-4800 to 7999 in French;
-8000 to 9999 in Dutch.

Botswana

09-10-1970

Under Article 10 Botswana Government advises that it objects to the methods set out in (b) and (c).
Under Article 15 a judge may give judgement if all the conditions specified in paragraph 2 of this Article are fullfilled.
Finally, the Office of the President of the Republic of Botswana advises that all documents forwarded for service be in duplicate and, if in any language other than English, an English translation be attached.

05-03-1974

4. It is declared that the Government of Botswana objects to the method of service referred to in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article 10.
5. It is declared that a judge of the High Court of Botswana may give judgement if all the conditions specified in paragraph 2 of Article 15 are fulfilled.
The authorities designated (...) will require all documents forwarded to them for service under the provisions of the Convention to be in triplicate and pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention will require the documents to be written in, or translated into the English language.

28-10-1974

The Office of the President of the Republic of Botswana declared that the authorities designated by Botswana in terms of the Convention require henceforth all documents forwarded to them for service to be in duplicate.

Brazil

29-11-2018

Reservation to Article 8:
Brazil is opposed to the use of the methods of transmission of judicial and extrajudicial documents provided for in Article 8 of the Convention.
Reservation to Article 10:
Brazil is opposed to the methods of transmission of judicial and extrajudicial documents provided for in Article 10 of the Convention.
Declaration pursuant to Article 2:
Brazil designates the Ministry of Justice as the Central Authority, in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the Convention.
Declaration pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 3 and Article 7, paragraph 2:
All documents transmitted to the Brazilian Central Authority in order to be served must necessarily be accompanied by a translation into Portuguese (except in the case of the standard terms in the model annexed to the Convention, referred to in Article 7, paragraph 1).
Declaration pursuant to Article 6:
When Brazil is the requested State, the required certificate in the form of the model annexed to the Convention must be signed by the Judge who has jurisdiction or by the Central Authority designated in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the Convention.

Bulgaria

23-11-1999

Reservation on article 5, paragraph 3:
The Republic of Bulgaria requires the document, which is to be served, to be written in or accompanied by a translation into the Bulgarian language.
Declaration on article 8, paragraph 2:
The Republic of Bulgaria declares that within Bulgarian territory foreign diplomatic and consular agents may effect service of judicial and extrajudicial documents only upon nationals of the State which they represent.
Declaration on article 10:
The Republic of Bulgaria objects to the use of the channels of transmission for service mentioned in article 10 of the Convention.
Declaration on article 15, paragraph 2:
The judge gives judgment provided that all certificates under article 15, paragraph 2 are available.
Declaration on article 16, paragraph 3:
The Republic of Bulgaria will not accept applications for relief concerning judgments under paragraph I of this article after the expiration of one year following the date of the judgment.

Canada

26-09-1988

2. Methods of service employed by the Central Authority (Article 5)
2.1 Formal service (Article 5, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph a)
In Canada, service will be effected according to the methods of service prescribed by the laws in force in each province and territory.
The normal procedure that will be used by central authorities in Canada is personal service made by a sheriff or deputy sheriff or a huissier in Quebec, on an individual or on a corporation by handing a copy of the document to the defendant in person, wherever he may be, or to the President, Chairman or other Chief Officer of a corporation at the place of business. Service may also be effected by leaving a copy of the document with a person of a reasonable age at the defendant's domicile or residence.
Where service is made on a corporation, provincial laws usually provide for service on a director or senior officer of the corporation or, in some cases, on a registered agent or on a responsible person at the registered office of the corporation.
2.2 Informal delivery (Article 5, paragraph 2)
The practice of informal delivery ("par simple remise") of judicial or extra judicial documents is not known in Canada.
2.3 Service by a particular method (Article 5, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph b)
In Alberta, New Brunswick and Ontario, service will be made by certified mail at the option of the requesting party. In Ontario, the Central Authority will serve by any form of mail, at the option of the requesting party.
2.4 Translation requirements (Article 5, paragraph 3)
For both Formal service and Service by a particular method, translation requirements will depend on the province or territory concerned.
For Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, all documents must be written in or translated into English.
For Ontario, Manitoba, and the Northwest Territories, all documents must be written in or translated into English or French.
For New Brunswick and the Yukon, all documents must be written in or translated into English or French. The Central Authority of New Brunswick or the Yukon may reserve the right to require documents to be translated into English or French depending on the language understood by the addressee.
For Quebec, translation will be required in all cases where the recipient does not understand the language in which the document is written. All documents which commence actions must be translated. Summary translation of all other documents is acceptable if the recipient agrees.
Translation is to be done into the French language; however, the Quebec central authority may, upon request, allow a translation in English at the condition that the recipient understands this language.
Costs (Article 12, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph a)
Costs for execution of service will be of $ 50.- Can.
I. Transmission through consular or diplomatic channel (Articles 8 and 9)
A. Acceptance
On accession, Canada has not declared that it objects to service by consular or diplomatic channels on its territory.
B. Forwarding to the Contracting States
Canada does not object to service by consular channels of Canadian documents abroad providing that the recipient accepts this method of service.
II. Transmission through postal channels (Article 10, sub-paragraph a)
A. Acceptance
Canada does not object to service by postal channels.
B. Forwarding to other contracting States
Canadian law allows the use of postal channels to serve Canadian documents to persons abroad.
III. Service through judicial officers, notably "huissiers", etc. of the requested State (Article 10, sub-paragraphs b) and c))
On accession, Canada has not declared to object to methods of service of Article 10, sub- paragraphs b) and c).
IV. Other direct channels (Article 11); special agreements (Articles 24 and 25)
Canada is party to bilateral conventions on civil procedure with the following States:
Austria: Canada Treaty Series, 1935, no 16
Belgium: Canada Treaty Series, 1928, no 16
Czechoslovakia: Canada Treaty Series, 1928, no 17
Denmark: Canada Treaty Series, 1936, no 4
Finland: Canada Treaty Series, 1936, no 5
France: Canada Treaty Series, 1928, no 15
Germany: Canada Treaty Series, 1935, no 11
Greece: Canada Treaty Series, 1938, no 11
Hungary: Canada Treaty Series, 1939, no 6
Iraq: Canada Treaty Series, 1938, no 12
Italy: Canada Treaty Series, 1938, no 14
Netherlands: Canada Treaty Series, 1936, no 2
Norway: Canada Treaty Series, 1935, no 15
Poland: Canada Treaty Series, 1935, no 18
Portugal: Canada Treaty Series, 1935, no 17
Spain: Canada Treaty Series, 1935, no 12
Sweden: Canada Treaty Series, 1935, no 13
Turkey: Canada Treaty Series, 1935, no 19
Yugoslavia: Canada Treaty Series, 1939, no 4

GUARANTEES UNDER THE CONVENTION
Declarations made pursuant to Articles 15, paragraph 1 or 16, paragraph 3
1. Stays of entry (Article 15, paragraph 2)
Canada declares that the judges may give judgment under the conditions stated in Article 15 of the Convention.
2. Relief from expiration of the period of time for appeal (Article 16, paragraph 3)
Canada declares that an application filed under Article 16 of the Convention will not be entertained if it is filed after the expiration of one year following the date of the judgment, except in exceptional cases determined by the rules of the Court seized of the matter.

12-09-2017

Current information on the following can be found in the Service Section of the website of the Hague Conference on Private International Law under the heading “Canada – Central Authorities & practical information”:
- Methods of service employed by the Central Authority (Article 5)
- Translation requirements (Article 5, paragraph 3)
- Costs for execution of service (Article 12)
- Bilateral conventions on civil procedure between Canada and other states (Article 25)

China

06-05-1991

2. to declare according to the second paragraph of Article 8 that the means of service stipulated in the first paragraph of that Article may be used within the territory of the People's Republic of China only when the document is to be served upon a national of the State in which the documents originate.
3. to oppose the service of documents in the territory of the People's Republic of China by the methods provided by Article 10 of the Convention.
4. to declare in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 15 of the Convention that if all the conditions provided in that paragraph are fulfilled, the judge, notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph of that Article, may give judgment even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received.
5. to declare in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 16 of the Convention that the application for relief from the effects of the expiration of the time for appeal shall not be entertained except that it is filed within one year following the date of the judgement.

16-06-1997

In accordance with the Joint Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the Question of Hong Kong signed on 19 December 1984, the People's Republic of China will resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong with effect from 1 July 1997. Hong Kong will, with effect from that date, become a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs which are the responsibilities of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China.
The Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters done on 15 November 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention"), by which the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is designated as the depository, to which the Government of the People's Republic of China deposited its instrument of accession on 3 May 1991, will apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region with effect from 1 July 1997. The Government of the People's Republic of China also makes the following declarations:
1. In accordance with Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention, it declares that the means of service referred to in Paragraph 1 of this Article may be used within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region only when the document is to be served upon a national of the state in which the document originates.
4. With reference to the provisions of Sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article 10 of the Convention, documents for service through official channels will be accepted in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region only by the Central Authority or other Authority designated, and only from judicial, consular or diplomatic officers of other Contracting States.
The Government of the People's Republic of China will assume responsibility for the international rights and obligations arising from the application of the Convention to the Hong Kong Special Adminstrative Region.

10-12-1999

In accordance with the Joint Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of Portugal on the Question of Macau signed on 13 April 1987, the Government of the People's Republic of China will resume the exercise of sovereignty over Macau with effect from 20 December 1999. Macao will from that date, become a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs which are the responsibilities of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China.
The Convention on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, concluded at The Hague on 15 November 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Convention), to which the Government of the People's Republic of China deposited the instrument of accession on 3 May 1991, shall apply to the Macau Special Administrative Region with effect from 20 December 1999. The Government of the People's Republic of China also whishes to make the following declaration:
2. In accordance with the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention, it declares that the means of service stipulated in the first paragraph of that Article may be used within the Macau Special Administrative Region only when the document is to be served upon a national of the State in which the document originates.
3. In accordance with the second paragraph of Article 15 of the Convention, it declares that if all the conditions provided in that paragraph are fulfilled, the judge of the Macau Special Administrative Region, notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph of that Article, may give judgement even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received.
4. In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 16 of the Convention, it declares that in the Macau Special Administrative Region, the application for relief from the effects of the expiration of the time for appeal shall not be entertained except that it is filed within one year following the date of the judgement.
The Government of the People's Republic of China shall assume the responsibility for the international rights and obligations arising from the application of the Convention to the Macau Special Administrative Region.

01-11-2000

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Convention, it declares that documents to be served in the Macao Special Administrative Region under the first paragraph of Article 5 shall be written in either Chinese or Portuguese, or be accompanied by a translation in either Chinese or Portuguese.

Colombia

15-07-2016

With regard to Article 7, second paragraph, the Republic of Colombia would appreciate if State Parties fill out the corresponding blanks in models annexed to the present Convention, in Spanish.

Croatia

28-02-2006

Declaration in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention:
The Republic of Croatia declares that documents served pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 1, should be accompanied by a translation into the Croatian language.
Declaration in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention:
The Republic of Croatia declares that it is opposed to direct service of judicial documents upon persons within its territory through foreign diplomatic or consular agents, unless the document is to be served upon a national of the State in which the document originate.
Declaration in accordance with Article 10 of the Convention:
The Republic of Croatia declares that it is opposed to the mode of service specified in Article 10 of the Convention.
Declaration in accordance with Article 15 of the Convention:
The Republic of Croatia declares that Croatian courts may give a judgement if all the conditions set out in paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Convention are fulfilled.
Declaration in accordance with Article 16 of the Convention:
The Republic of Croatia declares that applications for relief set out in Article 16 of the Convention will not be entertained if they are filed after the expiration of a period of one year following the date on which the judgement was given.

Cyprus

23-01-1984

(d) Articles 8 and 10:
No opposition to the methods of transmission of documents provided by these articles.
(e) Article 15:
Declaration that judgement may be given if all conditions laid down in paragraph 2 are fulfilled.
(f) Article 16:
Declaration pursuant to paragraph 3 that the application will not be entertained if it is filed after the expiration of one year from the date of the judgement.

Czech Republic

28-01-1993

The Czech Republic maintains the declarations made by Czechoslovakia.

Czechoslovakia (<01-01-1993)

23-09-1981

- In accordance with Article 8 of the Convention, within the territory of the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia judicial documents may not be served directly through the diplomatic or consular agents of another contracting State unless the document is to be served upon a national of the State in which the documents originate;
- in accordance with Article 10 of the Convention, within the territory of the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia judicial documents may not be served by another Contracting State through postal channels nor through the judicial officers, officials or other competent persons;
- in accordance with Article 15, paragraph 2, of the Convention, Czechoslovakian judges may give judgement even if the conditions pursuant to Article 15, paragraph 1, have not been fulfilled;
- the provisions of Article 29 of the Convention concerning the extension of the Convention to territories for the international relations of which the Contracting States are responsible are at variance with the Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly on the Granting of Independance to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 14 December 1960, and for this reason the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia does not consider itself to be bound by these provisions.

01-04-1982

This declaration cannot be considered a reserve in view of the fact that it does not follow other purposes than a similar declaration made at the ratification of the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, though a different formulation was used.
By this declaration the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic expresses its disagreement of principle with the status of colonies and other dependent territories which is in contradiction with the Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of December 14, 1960.
The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, however, has no intention to exclude the application of the Convention on the relations with the territories on which the use of the Convention has been extended in accordance with its Article 29.

Denmark

02-08-1969

re Article 10
Denmark is unable to recognize the method of effecting service set out in article 10, paragraph c.
re Article 15
Denmark avails itself of the power, provided for in article 15, second paragraph, to declare that the judge may give judgement in a matter even if the provisions of article 15, first paragraph, are not fulfilled.
re Article 16
Denmark will apply the provisions of article 16, paragraph 3, meaning that an application will not be entertained if it is filed after the expiration of one year following the date of the judgment.
Whether a case in which a default judgment is entered against a defendant should be re-opened is decided in accordance with articles 373 and 374 in conjunction with article 434 of the Code of Procedure, which state that a person against whom a judgment has been entered by default at first instance may file an application to re-open the case if he can prove that his failure to appear cannot be ascribed to him. The application to re-open the case must be filed as promptly as possible and will not be entertained after the expiration of one year following the date of the judgment.

Egypt

01-03-1966

It is understood that the signing of this Agreement does not mean in any way a recognition of Israel by the Government of the United Arab Republic. Furthermore, no treaty relations will arise between the United Arab Republic and Israel.

16-01-1969

The Government of the United Arab Republic opposes the use of the methods of transmitting abroad the judicial and extra-judicial documents according to Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention.

22-01-1980

... the Republic of Egypt declares (with effect from January 25, 1980) the withdrawal of its reservations, previously set with regard to the recognition of and the arising of treaty relations with Israël, ...

El Salvador

21-03-2024

1) The Republic of El Salvador totally excludes the application of the provision contained in paragraph one of article 8, since the State of El Salvador contemplates in its domestic legislation the procedure by which such proceedings will be carried out; and
2) With respect to the third paragraph of Article 5, El Salvador declares that formal notification will only be made by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of El Salvador if the document to be notified is written or translated into the Spanish language.

Estonia

02-02-1996

1) the Republic of Estonia is against the way of forwarding referred to in point c of Article 10;
2) on the basis of Article 15 the judge may give judgement under the said conditions;
3) on the basis of paragraph 3 of Article 16 for a period of three years.

30-04-2019

Estonia takes note of the Declarations submitted by Ukraine on 16 October 2015 regarding the application of the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (1961), the Convention on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (1965), the Convention on the taking of evidence abroad in civil or commercial matters (1970) and the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) and the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996) to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and of the Declarations submitted by the Russian Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declarations made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declarations made by the Russian Federation, Estonia declares, in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2014, that it does not recognise the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
As regards the territorial scope of the above Conventions, Estonia therefore considers that the conventions in principle continue to apply to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine.
Estonia further notes the Declaration by Ukraine that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol are temporarily not under the control of Ukraine and that the application and implementation by Ukraine of its obligations under the Conventions is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this part of Ukraine's territory, and that only the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv will determine the procedure for relevant communication.
As a consequence of the above, Estonia declares that it will not engage in any direct communication or interaction with authorities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and will not accept any documents or requests emanating from such authorities or through the authorities of the Russian Federation, but will only engage with the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv for the purposes of the application and implementation of the conventions.

Finland

11-11-1969

3. Finnish authorities are not obliged to assist in serving documents transmitted by using any of the methods referred to in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of art. 10 of the Convention.

19-09-2018

The Government of Finland takes note of the Declarations submitted by Ukraine on 16 October 2015 regarding the application of the Convention on Civil Procedure (1954), the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (1961), the Convention on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (1965), the Convention on the taking of evidence abroad in civil or commercial matters (1970), the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) and the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996) and the Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (2007) to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and of the Declarations submitted by the Russian Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declarations made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declarations made by the Russian Federation, Finland declares, in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2014, that it does not recognise the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
As regards the territorial scope of the above Conventions, Finland therefore considers that the conventions in principle continue to apply to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine.
Finland further notes the Declaration by Ukraine that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol are temporarily not under the control of Ukraine and that the application and implementation by Ukraine of its obligations under the Conventions is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this part of Ukraine's territory, and that only the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv will determine the procedure for relevant communication.
As a consequence of the above, Finland declares that it will not engage in any direct communication or interaction with authorities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and will not accept any documents or requests emanating from such authorities or through the authorities of the Russian Federation, but will only engage with the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv for the purposes of the application and implementation of the said conventions.

France

03-07-1972

4) The Government of the French Republic declares that, in accordance with article 8, it is opposed to the service of documents effected directly by the diplomatic or consular agents of the Contracting States on persons who are not nationals of those States.
5) The Government of the French Republic agrees to the provisions of article 15, paragraph 2.
With reference to article 16, paragraph 3, it also declares that an application for relief will no longer be entertained if it is filed after the expiration of more than twelve months following the date of the judgment.

Georgia

31-05-2021

The following Reservations shall be taken into consideration upon accession to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, dated 15 November 1965:
1. Georgia declares that a judge is authorized to deliver judgment in accordance with the conditions stated in Article 15 of the Convention.
2. Georgia declares that the application for relief set out in Article 16 of the Convention shall not be upheld if it is filed after the expiration of a period of five years following the date on which the judgment was given.
3. [Designation of authorities]
4. Georgia declares that the documents to be served on the territory of Georgia shall be written in the Georgian language or accompanied by a translation into the Georgian language duly certified according to the law of the requesting State.
5. For the purposes of Article 7 of the Convention, the documents shall be prepared in the English language.
6. Georgia declares that it shall object to direct service of judicial documents upon persons within its territory through foreign diplomatic or consular agents, unless the documents are to be served upon a national of the State from which the documents originate.
7. Georgia declares that the documents to be served in accordance with Article 9 of the Convention are forwarded to the Ministry of Justice of Georgia for the purposes of service to the parties.
8. Georgia objects to the service of documents by the means defined under Sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article 10 of the Convention.
9. [Designation of authorities]
The following Declaration shall be taken into consideration upon accession to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, dated 15 November 1965:
In accordance with Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article 2 of the Law of Georgia on the Occupied Territories, the occupied territories of Georgia are:
(a) the territories of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia;
(b) the Tskhinvali region (the territories of the former Autonomous Region of South Ossetia).
By Resolution No 1633 of 2008, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe confirmed the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders. In accordance with this Resolution, the Assembly condemns the recognition by the Russian Federation of the independence of the Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia, Georgia and Abkhazia, Georgia as a violation of international law and the statutory principles of the Council of Europe. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe reaffirms the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia and calls upon the Russian Federation to withdraw its recognition of the independence of the Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia, Georgia and Abkhazia, Georgia and to respect fully the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia, as well as the inviolability of its frontiers.
Furthermore, the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 11785) General Assembly also recognized the right of return of the internally displaced persons, regardless of their ethnicity, to the occupied territories of Georgia.
In this regard, Georgia states that the obligations under the present Convention shall be applied and implemented with respect to the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia when the circumstances permit and Georgia restores effective control over those territories.
Documents or requests made or issued by the illegal authorities of the Russian Federation, or officials of these illegal authorities, deployed (operating) in the occupied territories of Georgia, or by the illegitimate authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, Georgia and of the Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia, Georgia, which are currently under the effective control of the Russian Federation, are null and void and have no legal effect regardless of whether they are presented directly or indirectly through the authorities of the Russian Federation.
The provisions of the Convention on the possibility of direct communication or relation shall not apply to the illegal organs of Abkhazia (Georgia) and the Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia (Georgia), remaining under the effective control of the Russian Federation. The relevant communication procedures shall be determined by the Central Authority of Georgia in Tbilisi.

Germany

27-04-1979

The Central Authorities are empowered to have requests for service complied with directly by postal channels if the conditions for service in accordance with paragraph 1 (a) of Article 5 of the Convention have been fulfilled. In that case the competent Central Authority will hand over the document to the postal authorities for service. In all other cases the local court (Amtsgericht) in whose district the documents are to be served shall be competent to comply with requests for service. Service shall be effected by the registry of the local court.
Formal service (paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Convention) shall be permissible only if the document to be served is written in, or translated into, the German language.
In accordance with paragraph 2(a) of Article 21 of the Convention, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the use of methods of transmission pursuant to Articles 8 and 10. Service through diplomatic or consular agents (Article 8 of the Convention) is therefore only permissible if the document is to be served upon a national of the State sending the document. Service pursuant to Article 10 of the Convention shall not be effected.

19-11-1992

1. Notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 15, a German judge may give judgement even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received, if all the following conditions are fulfilled:
- the document was transmitted by one of the methods provided for in this Convention,
- a period of time of not less than six months, considered adequate by the judge in the particular case, has elapsed since the date of the transmission of the document,
- no certificate of any kind has been received, even though every reasonable effort has been made to obtain it through the competent authorities of the State addressed.
2. An application for relief in accordance with Article 16 will not be entertained if it is filed after the expiration of one year following the termination of the time-limit which has not been observed.

06-06-2018

The Federal Republic of Germany takes note of the Declarations submitted by Ukraine on 16 October 2015 regarding the application of the Convention on Civil Procedure (1954), the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (1961), the Convention on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (1965), the Convention on the taking of evidence abroad in civil or commercial matters (1970), the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) and the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996) and the Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (2007) to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and of the Declarations submitted by the Russian Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declarations made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declarations made by the Russian Federation, the Federal Republic of Germany declares, in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2014, that it does not recognise the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
Regarding the territorial scope of the above Conventions, the Federal Republic of Germany therefore considers that the Conventions in principle continue to apply to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine.
The Federal Republic of Germany further notes the Declarations by Ukraine that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol are temporarily not under the control of Ukraine and that the application and implementation by Ukraine of its obligations under the Conventions is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this part of Ukraine's territory, and that only the government of Ukraine will determine the procedure for relevant communication.
As a consequence of the above, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it will only engage with the government of Ukraine for the purposes of the application and implementation of the conventions with regard to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.

Greece

21-12-1989

The judges of the Hellenic Republic may give judgement if all the conditions in Article 15, paragraph 2, letters a, b and c of the Convention are fulfilled even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received.

13-07-1999

Greece declares that formal service will be effected only if the document to be served is written in, or translated into, Greek.

08-05-2000

Greece is opposed to the method of service provided in Article 8, unless the document to be served is addressed to a citizen of the requesting state.
Greece is opposed to the method of services provided in article 10.

24-07-2009

With respect to the declaration made by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia relating to Article 5 of the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of 1965, which was attached to its instrument of accession, Greece declares that all documents exchanged between Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia pursuant to this Convention shall continue to be written in or translated into the French language following the practice established in accordance with the 1959 Convention between Greece and the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia concerning Mutual Legal Relations, which remains in force between Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia by virtue of article 12 of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995. Furthermore, the provisions of the Memorandum on "Practical Measures" related to the above Interim Accord concerning the official correspondence between the two countries shall continue to apply between them. Subject to this condition, Greece will not exercise its right to object to the accession by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the 1965 Convention.

Hungary

13-07-2004

To Article 5
The service methods prescribed in Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Convention shall only be applied in the Republic of Hungary in case the document to be served is accompanied by an official translation into the Hungarian language.
To Article 8
The Republic of Hungary objects to the direct service of documents by foreign diplomatic or consular agents on the territory of the Republic of Hungary unless the addressee is a national of the sending state of the diplomatic or consular agent.
To Article 10
The Republic of Hungary objects to the use of the service methods prescribed in Article 10 of the Convention.
To Article 15
The Republic of Hungary declares that the Hungarian courts may give judgement if all the conditions set out in Paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Convention are fulfilled.
To Article 16
The Republic of Hungary declares that applications for relief set out in Article 16 of the Convention will not be entertained if it is filed more than one year after the date of judgement.

22-12-2022

The service methods prescribed in paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Convention shall only be applied in Hungary if the document to be served is accompanied by a certified translation or a translation accepted by the law of the requesting State for the purposes of court procedures into the Hungarian language.

Iceland

10-11-2008

Iceland objects to the use of such methods of service of documents on its territory as mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article 10 of the Convention.
Iceland declares that a judge, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 15, may give judgment even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received, if all the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 15 have been fulfilled.
In accordance with Article 16, paragraph 3, of the Convention, Iceland declares that an application for relief will not be entertained if it is filed after the expiration of a period of one year following the date of the judgment.

India

23-11-2006

*All requests for service of documents should be in English language or accompanied by an English translation;
*The service of judicial documents through diplomatic or consular channels will be limited to the nationals of the State in which the documents originate;
*India is opposed to the methods of service provided in Article 10;
*In terms of Article 15, Indian courts may give judgment if all conditions specified in the second paragraph of that Article are fulfilled; and
*For purposes of Article 16, an application for relief will not be entertained if filed after the expiration of one year following the date of the judgment.

Ireland

05-04-1994

Article 15
Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 15 a Judge in Ireland may give judgement even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received, if the conditions set out in the second paragraph of Article 15 of the Convention are fulfilled.
And the following objections:
Article 10
In accordance with the provision in Article 10 of the Convention the Government of Ireland objects to
(i) the freedom under Article 10(b) of judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of origin to effect service in Ireland of judicial documents directly through judicial officers, officials or other competent persons and
(ii) the freedom under Article 10(c) of any person interested in a judicial proceeding to effect service in Ireland of judicial documents directly through judicial officers, officials or other competent persons,
but this is not intended to preclude any person in another Contracting State who is interested in a judicial proceeding (including his lawyer) from effecting service in Ireland directly through a solicitor in Ireland.

Israel

14-08-1972

b) The State of Israel, in its quality as State of destination, will, in what concerns Article 10, paragraphs b) and c), of the Convention, effect the service of judicial documents only through the Directorate of Courts, and only where an application for such service emanates from a judicial authority or from the diplomatic or consular representation of a Contracting State;
c) An application to relieve a defendant from the effects of the expiration of the time of appeal from a judgment within the meaning of Article 16 of the Convention will be entertained only if filed within one year from the date of the judgment in question.

16-08-2021

In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Convention, the Government of Israel hereby notifies its opposition to the use of methods of transmission in its territory pursuant to Article 10(a) of the Convention with respect to documents addressed to the State of Israel, including its political subdivisions, agencies, authorities and instrumentalities, and to officials, or agents acting or who acted on behalf of the Government of Israel. Service of such documents shall be effected, subject to the provisions of the Convention, through the Directorate of Courts.

Italy

25-11-1981

d) the costs of any application for service under article 5, paragraph 1 (a) and (b) requiring the intervention of a judicial officer must be paid in advance in the amount of 6,000 lire, unless the amount was adjusted at the time the document was delivered. However, the costs occasioned by service of the document, payable in accordance with article 12, paragraph 2 of the Convention, may be paid after delivery in the manner specifically set by the judicial officer.
The Italian Republic will require no advance payment or reimbursement of the cost of service of documents requested by the Contracting States so long as they too require no advance payment or reimbursement of costs for documents originating in Italy.

Japan

14-07-1970

(4) It is declared that the Government of Japan objects to the use of the methods of service referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Article 10.
(5) It is declared that Japanese courts may give judgment if all the conditions specified in the second paragraph of Article 15 are fulfilled.

21-12-2018

In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Convention, the Government of Japan hereby gives notice of its declaration of opposition to Article 8 and Article 10(a).

Kazakhstan

15-10-2015

1) in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention documents for service shall be accepted only if they are made in the Kazakh and/or Russian languages or accompanied by a translation in the defined languages;
2) An application for relief of the period referred to Article 16 of the Convention, will not be entertained if it is filed after the expiration of one year from the date of the court’s decision.

Kuwait

29-06-2005

4. The opposition to methods of service of judicial documents mentioned in Article 8 and 10 of the Convention.
5. The reservation against Paragraph 2 of Article 15.
6. The understanding of Paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Convention, as for the time limit, mentioned in this paragraph, is the time fixed by the law of the trial judge or one year following the date of judgment which ever is longer.

Latvia

05-05-2009

In accordance with paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Convention the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Latvia as the Central Authority requires the document to be translated into the official language or into the language understandable to the addressee if the addressee has refused to accept the document in the cases provided for in the Civil Procedure Law of the Republic of Latvia.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention the Republic of Latvia declares that it is opposed to the service of documents under Article 8 of the Convention within its territory, unless the document is to be served upon a national of the State in which the documents originate.
In accordance with Article 10 of the Convention the Republic of Latvia does not object to the freedom to send a judicial document, by postal channels, directly to an addressee within the Republic of Latvia (paragraph (a) of Article 10) if the document to be served is in Latvian or it is accompanied by translation into Latvian and it is sent to the addressee using a registered postal letter (with an acknowledgement of receipt).
In accordance with Article 10 of the Convention the Republic of Latvia objects to the channels of transmission specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article 10.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Convention court may render a judgment as stated by the Civil Procedure Law of the Republic of Latvia even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received, if all the conditions set out in the afore mentioned paragraph are fulfilled.

04-04-2018

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia […] with reference to […] the Convention on Civil Procedure (1954), the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (1961), the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (1965), the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (1970), the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980),and the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996) has to honour to convey the following.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia takes note of the Declarations submitted by Ukraine on 16 October 2015 regarding the application of the aforementioned Conventions to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and of the Declarations submitted by the Russian Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declarations made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declarations made by the Russian Federation, the Republic of Latvia declares, in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2014, that it does not recognise the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
As regards the territorial scope of the above Conventions, the Republic of Latvia therefore considers that the Conventions in principle continue to apply to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine.
The Republic of Latvia further notes the Declarations by Ukraine that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol are temporarily not under the control of Ukraine and that the application and implementation by Ukraine of its obligations under the Convention is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this part of Ukraine's territory, and that only the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv will determine the procedure for relevant communication.
As a consequence of the above, the Republic of Latvia declares that it will not engage in any direct communication or interaction with authorities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and will not accept any documents or requests emanating from such authorities or through the authorities of the Russian Federation, but will only engage with the central authorities of Ukraine in Kiev for the purposes of the application and implementation of the convention.

28-01-2019

The Republic of Latvia informs that in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention it does not determine the competent authority or competent judicial officer to forward a request for service of documents to the foreign Central Authority.
In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention the Authority of the Republic of Latvia designated to complete a certificate in the form of the model, annexed to the Convention, is the sworn bailiff competent for service of documents under the relevant Latvian laws and regulations.

Lithuania

02-08-2000

And whereas it is provided in Article 8 of the said Convention, the Republic of Lithuania declares that it opposes to the ways of service of documents provided in this Article, unless the documents are to be served upon a national of the State in which the documents originate;
And whereas it is provided in Article 10 of the said Convention, the Republic of Lithuania declares that it is opposed to the ways of service of documents provided in this Article;
And whereas it is provided in paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the said Convention, the Republic of Lithuania declares that the judge of the Republic of Lithuania may give judgment even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received, if all conditions of paragraph 2 of Article 15 are fulfilled;
And whereas it is provided in paragraph 2 of Article 16 of the said Convention, the Republic of Lithuania declares that an application for relief will not be entertained if it is filed after the expiration of one year following the date of the final judgment.

16-06-2020

The Government of the Republic of Lithuania takes note of the Declarations submitted by Ukraine on 16 October 2015 regarding the application of the Convention on Civil Procedure (1954), the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (1961), the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (1965), the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (1970), the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) and the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996) to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and of the Declarations submitted by the Russian Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declarations made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declarations made by the Russian Federation, the Government of the Republic of Lithuania declares, in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2014, that it does not recognize the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
As regards the territorial scope of the above Conventions, the Government of the Republic of Lithuania therefore considers that the conventions in principle continue to apply to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine.
The Government of the Republic of Lithuania further notes the Declaration by Ukraine that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol are temporarily not under the control of Ukraine and that the application and implementation by Ukraine of its obligations under the Conventions is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this part of Ukraine's territory, and that only the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv will determine the procedure for relevant communication.
As a consequence of the above, the Government of the Republic of Lithuania declares that it will not engage in any direct communication or interaction with authorities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and will not accept any documents or requests emanating from such authorities or through the authorities of the Russian Federation, but will only engage with the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv for the purposes of the application and implementation of the said conventions.

Luxembourg

09-07-1975

2. In accordance with article 8, the Government of Luxembourg declares that it is opposed to the direct service of documents on its territory by diplomatic and consular agents other than to their own nationals.
3. In accordance with article 10, the Government of Luxembourg objects to the sending of judicial documents by postal channels to persons on its territory.
4. When foreign judicial documents are served in accordance with article 5 (a) and article 10 (b) and (c) by a Luxembourg judicial officer, they must be drafted in French or German or accompanied by a translation into one of these languages.
5. The Government of Luxembourg declares that, notwithstanding the provisions of article 15, paragraph 1 of the Convention, its courts may give judgment if all the conditions of article 15, paragraph 2 are fulfilled.
6. In accordance with article 16, paragraph 3 of the Convention, the Government of Luxembourg declares that the applications referred to in paragraph 2 of that same article will not be entertained if they are filed after the expiration of one year following the date of the judgment.

15-06-1978

The Government of Luxembourg withdraws the folllowing declaration:
In accordance with article 10, the Government of Luxembourg objects to the sending of judicial documents by postal channels to persons on its territory.

Malta

24-02-2011

Pursuant to Article 8 of the Convention, the Government of Malta declares, that it is opposed to service of documents within the territory of Malta effected directly through the diplomatic or consular agents of other Contracting States, in accordance with the first paragraph of the said Article 8, other than upon the national of the Contracting State effecting such service.
Pursuant to Article 10 of the Convention, the Government of Malta declares, that it is opposed to the use by other Contracting States of any of the methods of transmission and service of documents mentioned in the said Article 10 within its territory.

01-08-2012

Malta declares that its accession to the Convention will only take effect upon the completion of procedures relating to the said accession within the European Union and, in particular, the adoption of a Council Decision authorising Malta to accede to this Convention. Once this adoption takes place, Malta will notify the depositary of the date when the said Convention will become applicable to Malta.

18-07-2018

Reference is made to the following declaration submitted by the Republic of Malta dated 1 August 2012 concerning the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (1965):
Malta declares that its accession to the Convention will only take effect upon the completion of procedures relating to the said accession within the European Union and, in particular, the adoption of a Council Decision authorising Malta to accede to this Convention. Once this adoption takes place, Malta will notify the depositary of the date when the said Convention will become applicable to Malta.
[…] the Republic of Malta wishes to withdraw this declaration in view of the Council Decision (EU) 2016/414 of 10 March 2016.

17-09-2019

[…] the date on which the aforementioned Convention became applicable to the Republic of Malta is 17 July 2018, on submission of NV 26/2018, in line with Article 3 of Council Decision (EU) 2016/414 of 10 March 2016 authorising the Republic of Malta to accede to the aforementioned Convention.

Marshall Islands

04-08-2020

The documents served pursuant to Article 5 must be written in or translated into the English language;
the standard terms in the model annexed to the present Convention and the corresponding blanks shall be completed in English;
[the Republic of the Marshall Islands] is opposed to the method of service provided in Article 8 unless the document is to be served upon a national of the State in which the document originates;
[the Republic of the Marshall Islands] objects to the methods of transmission of judicial documents provided in Article 10(a);
the judge, notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 15, may give judgment even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received, if all the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) the document was transmitted by one of the methods provided for in this Convention; (ii) a period of time of not less than six months, considered adequate by the judge in the particular case, has elapsed since the date of the transmission of the document; and (iii) no certificate of any kind has been received, even though every reasonable effort has been made to obtain it through the competent authorities of the State addressed; and
the application for relief referred to in Article 16 will not be entertained if it is filed more than one year following the date of the judgment.

Mexico

02-11-1999

II. In relation to Article 5, when the judicial and extrajudicial documents to be served in Mexican territory are written in a language other than Spanish, they must be accompanied by the corresponding translation.
IV. In relation to Article 8, the contracting States shall not be able to effect service of judicial documents directly through its diplomatic or consular agencies in Mexican territory, unless the document is to be served upon a national of the State in which the documents originate and provided that such a procedure does not contravene public law or violate individual guarantees.
V. In relation to Article 10, the United Mexican States are opposed to the direct service of documents through diplomatic or consular agents to persons in Mexican territory according to the procedures described in sub-paragraphs a), b) and c), unless the Judicial Authority exceptionally grants the simplification different from the national regulations and provided that such a procedure does not contravene public law or violate individual guarantees. The request must contain the description of the formalities whose application is required to effect service of the document.
VI. In relation to the first paragraph of Article 12, the costs occasioned by serving judicial or extrajudicial documents will be covered by the applicant, unless the State in which the documents originate does not demand payment for those services from Mexico.
VII. In relation to Article 15, second paragraph, the Government of Mexico does not recognize the faculty of the Judicial Authority to give judgement when the defendant has not appeared and there is no communication establishing that the document was served, or that documents originating outside the country were indeed delivered, according to sub-paragraphs a) and b) of the first paragraph.
VIII. In relation to Article 16, third paragraph, the Government of Mexico declares that such an application will not be admitted if it is filed later than a year following the date of the decision, or a longer period which the judge may deem reasonable.
The Government of Mexico will understand that, in cases in which sentence has been passed without the defendant having been duly summoned, the nullity of the proceedings will be established under the provisions of the applicable legislation.

24-01-2002

..... requests .... that, besides English or French the request forms addressed to the Mexican Central Authority should be filled out in Spanish, according to Article 5 of the Convention.

04-05-2011

1. The Government of the United Mexican States modifies the declarations made at the moment of acceding to the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, done at The Hague on 15 November 1965, to read as follows:
[...]
II. In relation to Article 5, where the judicial or extrajudicial documents written in a language other than Spanish are to be served in Mexican territory, they must be accompanied by the corresponding Spanish translation.
[...]
IV. In relation to Article 7, second paragraph, it will be much appreciated if the blanks of the forms could be filled in Spanish.
V. In relation to Article 8, the Contracting States shall not be able to serve directly, nor perform the service process of judicial documents through its diplomatic or consular agencies in Mexican territory, unless the document is to be served upon a national of the State wherein the documents originate, provided that such procedure does not contravene the ordre public or violate constitutional rights.
VI. In relation to Article 12, second paragraph, the costs incurred by serving judicial or extrajudicial documents will be covered by the applicant.
VII. In relation to Article 15, second paragraph, the Government of Mexico does not recognize the power of the judicial authority to give judgment, where the defendant does not appear and there is no communication evidencing that the document was served or that documents originating outside the country were indeed delivered, as referred in to sub-paragraphs a) and b) of the first paragraph.
VIII. In relation to Article 16, third paragraph, the Government of Mexico declares that such an application shall not be entertained if it is filled later than a year following the date of the judgment, or a longer period which the judge may deem reasonable. The Government of Mexico shall understand that, in cases in which sentence has been passed without the defendant having been duly served, the annulment of the proceedings shall be established under the provisions of the applicable legislation.
2. In accordance with Article 21, second paragraph, subparagraph a), Mexico declares that it is opposed to the use in its territory of the methods of transmission provided for in Article 10.

Moldova

04-07-2012

1. According to the article 5 paragraph 3 of the convention, the service of the document within the territory of the Republic of Moldova will be allowed only if the document which is to be served is written or translated into the official language of the Republic of Moldova.
2. The Republic of Moldova declares that it is opposed upon modalities of service of judicial documents within its territory mentioned in the article 8 paragraph 1 of the convention, except the case when the document is to be served upon a national of the state in which the documents originate, and upon modalities of transmitting of the documents mentioned in the article 10 of the convention.
3. According to the article 15 paragraph 2 of the convention, the Republic of Moldova declares that the judges of the Republic of Moldova may give judgment even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received, if all the conditions mentioned in this paragraph are fulfilled.
4. According to article 16 paragraph 3 of the convention, the Republic of Moldova declares that the writ of summons submitted in the conditions of the article 16 of the convention will be not entertained if it is filed after one year following the date of the judgment.

Monaco

01-03-2007

1. The Principality of Monaco declares, as provided in article 8, that it is opposed to the service of judicial documents directly through the diplomatic or consular agents of the contracting States upon persons who are not nationals of these States.
2. The Principality of Monaco declares that it objects to the exercise of the freedom described in article 10, paragraph 1 (a).
3. The Principality of Monaco declares that it approves the dispositions laid down in article 15, paragraph 2.
4. With regard to article 16, paragraph 3, the Principality of Monaco declares that an application to relieve a defendant who has not appeared from the effects of the expiration of the time for appeal will no longer be entertained if it is filed more than twelve months after the date of the judgment.

Montenegro

16-01-2012

[...]
b) Montenegro is opposed to effect service directly through foreign diplomatic or consular agents in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention, unless the document is to be served upon a national of the State in which the documents originate;
c) Montenegro is opposed to methods of transmission pursuant to Article 10 of the Convention;
d) Courts in Montenegro can give the judgment if conditions pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 15 are fulfilled;
e) the application (restitutio in integrum) will not be entertained after one year following the date of the judgment;
[...].

Netherlands, the Kingdom of the

03-11-1975

5. As an exception to the provisions of article 15, paragraph 1 of the Convention, the Dutch courts may give judgment even if no certificate has been received stating that service or delivery was effected, so long as all the following conditions are fulfilled:
a. the document was forwarded through one of the channels provided for in the Convention;
b. the time limit set by the court in each case, which must be at least six months, has elapsed since the document was sent;
c. despite the exercise of due diligence in contacting the competent authorities, no certificate of service or delivery could be obtained.
6. An application for a new time limit within the meaning of article 16 of the Convention will be entertained only if it is filed within one year following the date of the judgment.

Nicaragua

20-04-2020

Article 2
Nicaragua interprets the Convention’s provisions as being applicable as well to family law, in accordance with Article 1 of said Convention, in view of the fact that at the date of the Convention’s signature family-law institutions were part of civil law, so that Nicaragua understands that it was the intention of the Parties not to exclude family-law matters.
Article 3
Nicaragua declares that it is opposed to the service of judicial documents within its territory under Article 8, second paragraph of the Convention.
Article 4
Nicaragua declares that it objects to the forms and channels of sending and service of documents set out in Article 10 (a), (b) and (c) of the Convention.
Article 5
Nicaragua declares that it accepts the provisions of Article 15, second paragraph of the Convention.
Article 6
Nicaragua declares that in accordance with Article 16, third paragraph of the Convention, an application for relief will not be entertained if it is filed after the expiration of a period of one year following the date that the judgment has been entered.

North Macedonia

23-12-2008

The Republic of Macedonia declares that all documents which are served pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention should be written in or translated into, the Macedonian language according to the Article 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia dated 17 November 1991.
In accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, the Republic of Macedonia declares that the courts of first instance in the Republic of Macedonia shall be competent to complete the certificate in the form of the model annexed to this Convention.
In accordance with Article 15 of the Convention, the Republic of Macedonia declares that courts in the Republic of Macedonia may give judgment if all the conditions set out in paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Convention are fulfilled.
In accordance with Article 16, paragraph 3, of the Convention the Republic of Macedonia declares that an application for relief set out in Article 16 of the Convention will not be entertained if it is filed after the expiration of a period of one year following the date when the judgement was given.
In accordance with paragraph 2(a) of Article 21 of the Convention, the Republic of Macedonia objects to the use of methods of service pursuant to Article 8 and 10.
In accordance with Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention, within the territory of the Republic of Macedonia judicial documents may not be served directly through the diplomatic or consular agents of another Contracting State unless the document is to be served upon a national of the State in which the documents originate.
The Republic of Macedonia objects to the use of the service methods prescribed in Article 10 of the Convention.
The Republic of Macedonia declares that the documents served in accordance with Article 9 of the Convention are forwarded to the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Macedonia for the purpose of service to the parties.

Norway

02-08-1969

4. The Government of Norway is opposed to the use of such methods of service or transmission of documents on its territory as mentioned in Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention.
5. Norwegian courts may give judgment when all the conditions specified in the second paragraph of Article 15 are fulfilled.
6. In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 16, applications for relief according to Article 16 will not be entertained if they are delivered to the competent Norwegian authorities after the expiration of three years following the date of the judgment.

Pakistan

01-02-1990

For the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention it is hereby declared that the Government of Pakistan is opposed to service of Judicial Documents upon persons other than nationals of the requesting States, residing in Pakistan, directly through the Diplomatic and Consular agents of the requesting States.
However, it has no objection to such service by postal channels directly to the persons concerned (Article 10(a)) or directly through the judicial officers of Pakistan in terms of Article 10 (b) of the Convention if such service is recognised by the law of the requesting State.
In terms of the second paragraph of Article 15 of the Convention, it is hereby declared that notwithstanding the provision of the first paragraph thereof the judge may give judgement even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received, if the following conditions are fulfilled:
a) the document was transmitted by one of the methods provided for in the Convention;
b) the period of time of not less than 6 months, considered adequate by the Judge in the particular case, has elapsed since the date of transmission of the document; and
c) no certificate of any kind has been received even though every reasonable effort has been made to obtain it through the competent authorities of the State addressed.
As regards Article 16, paragraph 3, of the Convention it is hereby declared that in case of ex-parte decisions, an application for setting it aside will not been entertained if it is filed after the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed by law of Pakistan.

Paraguay

23-06-2023

1. With respect to Article 5, third paragraph and Article 7, second paragraph, the Republic of Paraguay declares that judicial and extrajudicial notifications and documents shall be accepted only in Spanish or when accompanied by an official translation into Spanish.
2. With respect to Article 6, the Republic of Paraguay declares that the certificate, in accordance with the model annexed to the Convention, shall be signed by the Central Authority designated in accordance with Article 2.
3. With respect to Article 8, the Republic of Paraguay declares that it is opposed to the use of the methods of transmission of judicial and extrajudicial documents provided for in Article 8 of the Convention.
4. With respect to Article 10, the Republic of Paraguay declares that it objects to the methods of transmission of judicial and extrajudicial documents provided for in this Article of the Convention.

Philippines

01-10-2020

1. In accordance with Article 5 of the Convention, formal service shall be permissible only if the document to be served is written in or translated into the English or Filipino language.
2. Pursuant to Article 8, the Philippines objects to service of judicial documents directly through diplomatic or consular agents upon persons in its territory, unless the document is served upon a national of the State in which the documents originate.
3. The Philippines objects to the transmission channels under paragraphs a and c as provided for in Article 10 of the Convention.

Poland

13-02-1996

Articles 8 and 10:
The Republic of Poland declares that it is opposed to the modes of service specified in Articles 8 and 10 within its territory.

29-04-2021

The Republic of Poland takes note of the Declarations submitted by Ukraine on 16 October 2015 regarding the application of the Convention on civil procedure (1954), the Convention on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (1965), the Convention on the taking of evidence abroad in civil or commercial matters (1970), the Convention on the recognition and enforcement of decisions relating to maintenance obligations (1973), the Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction (1980) and the Convention on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and co-operation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children (1996) and of the Declarations submitted by the Russian Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declarations made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declarations made by the Russian Federation, the Republic of Poland declares, in accordance with the duty of non-recognition as lawful a situation created by a serious breach by State of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law and in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2014, that it does not recognize the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
As regards the territorial scope of the above Conventions, the Republic of Poland therefore considers that the Conventions in principle continue to apply to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine.
The Republic of Poland further notes the Declarations by Ukraine that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as well as certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine are temporarily not under the control of Ukraine and that the application and implementation by Ukraine of its obligations under the Conventions is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this part of Ukraine's territory, and that only the government of Ukraine will determine the procedure for relevant communication.
As a consequence of the above, the Republic of Poland declares that it will not engage in any direct communication or interaction with authorities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as well as in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine and will not accept any documents or requests emanating from such authorities or through the authorities of the Russian Federation, but will only engage with the central authorities of Ukraine for the purposes of the application and implementation of the conventions.

Portugal

31-10-1974

In accordance with Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Portuguese government grants diplomatic and consular agents the power to serve documents on their own nationals only.
The Portuguese government declares that, notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 15 of the Convention, its judges may give judgment if the conditions listed in paragraph 2 of the said Article are fulfilled.
In accordance with Article 16, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the Portuguese government states that the applications referred to in Article 16, paragraph 2, will not be considered if they are made after the expiration of a period of one year from the date of the judgment.

11-09-1999

3. In accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of article 8 of the Convention, Portugal reiterates that it recognizes to the diplomatic or consular agents the right to forward documents, for the purpose of service, exclusively to the nationals of the State in which the documents originate.
5. Portugal declares that the judges of the courts of Macau, notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph of article 15 of the Convention, may give judgement on whether the conditions referred to in the second paragraph of the same article are fulfilled.
6. In accordance with the third paragraph of article 16 of the Convention, Portugal declares that the applications referred to in the second paragraph of article 16 will not be entertained if they are filed after the expiration of one year following the date of the judgement.

26-11-1999

In accordance with the Joint Declaration of the Government of the Portugese Republic and of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the question of Macau, signed in Beijing on 13 April 1987, the Government of the Portugese Republic will remain internationally responsible for Macau until 19 December 1999, the People's Republic of China resuming from that date the exercise of sovereignity over Macau, with effect from 20 December 1999.
From 20 December 1999 the Portugese Republic will cease to be responsible for the international rights and obligations arising from the application of the Convention in Macau.

13-03-2018

The Government of the Portuguese Republic takes note of the Declaration submitted by Ukraine on 16 October 2015 regarding the application of Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, done at The Hague, on 15 November 1965, to the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol and of the Declaration submitted by the Russian Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declaration made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declaration made by the Russian Federation, the Government of the Portuguese Republic declares, in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2014, that it does not recognise the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal annexation of the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
As regards the territorial scope of the above Convention, the Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore considers that the Convention in principle continues to apply to the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic further notes the Declaration by Ukraine that the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol are temporarily not under the control of Ukraine and that the application and implementation by Ukraine of its obligations under the Convention is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this part of Ukraine's territory, and that only the central authorities of Ukraine in Kiev will determine the procedure for relevant communication.
As a consequence of the above, the Government of the Portuguese Republic declares that it will not engage in any direct communication or interaction with authorities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and will not accept any documents or requests emanating from such authorities or through the authorities of the Russian Federation, but will only engage with the central authorities of Ukraine in Kiev for the purposes of the application and implementation of the convention.

Republic of Korea, the

13-01-2000

1. Pursuant to Article 8, the Republic of Korea objects to service of judicial documents directly through diplomatic or consular agents upon persons in its territory, unless the document is to be served upon a national of the State in which the documents originate.
2. Pursuant to Article 10, the Republic of Korea objects to the following:
a) the freedom to send judicial documents. by postal channels, directly to persons abroad,
b) the freedom of judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of origin to effect service of judicial documents directly through the judicial officials or other competent persons of the State of destination,
c) the freedom of any person interested in a judicial proceeding to effect service of judicial documents directly through the judicial officials or other competent persons of the State of destination.
3. Pursuant to Article 15, paragraph 2, the judge of the Republic of Korea may give judgement even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received if all the following conditions are fulfilled:
a) the document was transmitted by one of the methods provided for in this Convention,
b) a period of time of not less than six months, considered adequate by the judge in the particular case, has elapsed since the date of the transmission of the document,
c) no certificate or any kind has been received, even though every reasonable effort has been made to obtain it through the competent authorities of the State addressed.

Romania

21-08-2003

3. In accordance with Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Convention, Romania declares that the foreign diplomatic and consular agents can effect service of judicial or extrajudicial documents within the territory of Romania, exclusively upon nationals of the state they represent.
4. In accordance with Article 16, paragraph 3 of the Convention, Romania shall not entertain the applications pursuant to Article 16 paragraph 2, if these are filed after the expiration of a period of one year following the date of the judgement.

14-06-2018

Romania takes note of the Declarations submitted by Ukraine on 16 October 2015 regarding the application of the Convention on Civil Procedure (1954), the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (1961), the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980), the Convention on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (1965) and the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996) to the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol and of the Declarations submitted by the Russian Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declarations made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declarations made by the Russian Federation, Romania declares, in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2014, that it does not recognise the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal annexation of the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
As regards the territorial scope of the above Conventions, Romania therefore considers that the Conventions in principle continue to apply to the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine.
Romania further notes the Declarations by Ukraine that the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol are temporarily not under the control of Ukraine and that the application and implementation by Ukraine of its obligations under the Conventions is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this part of Ukraine's territory, and that only the central authorities of Ukraine in Kiev will determine the procedure for relevant communication.
As a consequence of the above, Romania declares that it will not engage in any direct communication or interaction with authorities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and will not accept any documents or requests emanating from such authorities or through the authorities of the Russian Federation, but will only engage with the central authorities of Ukraine in Kiev for the purposes of the application and implementation of the conventions.

Russian Federation

05-11-2004

III. Pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention documents to be served within the territory of the Russian Federation shall only be accepted if they have been written in, or translated into, the Russian language. Forms of the request for service, the certificate of service, and the document summary (with standard terms translated into Russian) are attached. Filling the blanks in Russian is most appreciated.
V. Pursuant to Article 8 of the Convention, diplomatic and consular agents of foreign States are not permitted to effect service of documents within the territory of the Russian Federation, unless the document is to be served upon a national of the State in which the documents originate.
VI. Service of documents by methods listed in Article 10 of the Convention is not permitted in the Russian Federation.
VIII. The Russian Federation assumes that in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention the service of judicial documents coming from a Contracting State shall not give rise to any payment or reimbursement of taxes or costs for the services rendered by the State addressed. Collection of such costs (with the exception of those provided for by subparagraphs a) and b) of the second paragraph of Article 12) by any Contracting State shall be viewed by the Russian Federation as refusal to uphold the Convention in relation to the Russian Federation, and, consequently, the Russian Federation shall not apply the Convention in relation to this Contracting State.
IX. In accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation the courts of the Russian Federation may give judgments pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 15 of the Convention.

19-07-2016

Reaffirming its firm commitment to respect and fully comply with generally recognised principles and rules of international law, the Russian Federation, with reference to the declaration of Ukraine of 16 October 2015 regarding the Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, states the following.
The Russian Federation rejects to the above mentioned declaration of Ukraine and states that it cannot be taken into consideration as it is based on a bad faith and incorrect presentation and interpretation of facts and law.
The declaration of Ukraine regarding "certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine" cannot serve as a justification for non-compliance with its obligations, disregard for humanitarian considerations, refusal or failure to take necessary measures to find practical solutions for issues that have a very serious and direct impact on the ability of residents of those regions to exercise their fundamental rights and freedoms provided for by international law.
The declaration of independence of the Republic of Crimea and its voluntary accession to the Russian Federation are the result of a direct and free expression of will by the people of Crimea in accordance with democratic principles, a legitimate form of exercising their right to self-determination given an aided from abroad violent coup d'état in Ukraine which caused rampant radical nationalist elements not hesitating to use terror, intimidation and harassment against both its political opponents and the population of entire regions of Ukraine.
The Russian Federation rejects any attempts to call into question an objective status of the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the territories of which are an integral part of the territory of the Russian Federation under its full sovereignty. Thus, the Russian Federation reaffirms that it fully complies with its international obligations under the Convention in relation to this part of its territory.

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

06-02-2008

d) The Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines declares that it is opposed to the channels of transmission provided for in articles 10(b) and (c) of the Convention.
e) The Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines declares that the provisions of the second paragraph of article 15 of the Convention shall apply to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
f) The designated authority will require all documents forwarded to it for service under the provisions of the Convention to be in duplicate and, pursuant to the third paragraph of article 5 of the Convention, will require the documents to be written in, or translated into, the English language.

San Marino

15-04-2002

4. In conformity with Article 21, second paragraph, letter a), the Republic of San Marino declares its opposition to the use of methods of transmission pursuant to Articles 8 and 10.
5. In conformity with Article 21, second paragraph, letter b), the Republic of San Marino declares pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 15, that its judges, notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph of said Article, may give judgement even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received, if all the conditions referred to in letters a), b) and c) are fulfilled.

04-02-2010

Methods of service (Article 5(1)(2)):
Formal Service (Article 5(1)(a))
Formal service under Article 5(1) of the Convention, on the other hand, is the only permissible. The original document must to be served and any attachments thereto have been prepared in Italian or have otherwise been translated into Italian.
Translation requirements (Article 5(3)):
Service requested within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Convention requires that all documents to be served must be prepared in Italian or that a legalized and sworn translation in Italian be attached thereto.
(...)
Article 8(2):
Opposition
Article 10(a):
Opposition
Article 10(b):
Opposition
Article 10(c):
Opposition
Article 15(2):
Declaration of applicability.
Article 16(3):
No declaration of applicability.

01-10-2010

Costs relating to execution of the request for service (Art. 12):
The costs proceeding from each request for service in accordance with Article 5(1)(a)(b) have to be paid in advance in the amount of 30,00 EURO.
The payment of service costs should be made to:
Ufficio Registro e Ipoteche delle Repubblica di San Marino
Via 28 Luglio n. 196
47893 Borgo Maggiore
Repubblica di San Marino
SWIFT CODE: ICSMSMSMXXX
IBAN SM44 A032 2509 8000 0001 0005 403
Copy of payment should be attached thereto the documents.

Serbia

02-07-2010

In accordance with Article 21 of the Convention, Republic of Serbia declares:
a) Way of service prescribed by paragraph 1 of the Article 5 of the Convention will be applied in the Republic of Serbia if the document(s) for which its service is requested is accompanied with official translation into Serbian.
b) Receipt on delivery prescribed by Article 6 of the Convention in the Republic of Serbia makes the Competent Court which is also competent for service of document(s).
c) Republic of Serbia is against directly document service on its territory performed by foreign diplomatic or consular Representatives in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention, except if the Recipient is Citizen of diplomatic or consular Representative's Country.
d) Republic of Serbia is against the way of service (delivery) prescribed in Article 10 a) and c) of the Convention.
e) Republic of Serbia declares that all Courts in the Republic of Serbia can pronounce verdicts if all conditions are fulfilled in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Article 15 of the Convention.
f) Republic of Serbia declares that the Request for return to previous state prescribed in Article 16 of the Convention will be rejected as unallowed if is submitted after expiration of one year from the day of pronounce of verdict.

Seychelles

14-07-1981

(ii) Article 8
The Government of the Republic of Seychelles declares that it is opposed to service by a contracting state of judicial documents upon persons abroad, without application of any compulsion, directly through the diplomatic or consular agents of that contracting state unless the document is to be served upon a national of the state in which the documents originate.
(iii) Article 10
The Government of the Republic of Seychelles declares that it objects to paragraph (b) and (c) of this Article, in so far as they permit service of judicial documents through officials or persons other than judicial officers.
(iv) Article 15
The Government of the Republic of Seychelles declares that notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph of this Article, the judge may give judgement even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received, if all the following conditions are fulfilled.
a) the document was transmitted by one of the methods provided for in this Convention,
b) a period of time of not less than six months, considered adequate by the judge in the particular case, has elapsed since the date of the transmission of the document,
c) no certificate of any kind has been received, even though every reasonable effort has been made to obtain it through the competent authorities of the State addressed.
(v) Article 16
The Government of the Republic of Seychelles declares that it will not entertain an application for relief if filed later than one year following the date of the judgement.

Singapore

16-05-2023

1. In accordance with Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Republic of Singapore declares that it is opposed to the direct service of judicial documents upon persons within its territory through foreign diplomatic or consular agents, unless the documents are to be served upon a national of the State from which the documents originate.
2. The Republic of Singapore declares that it objects to the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents within its territory by the methods of transmission set out in Article 10 of the Convention.

Slovakia

15-03-1993

Slovakia maintains the declarations made by Czechoslovakia.

Slovenia

18-12-2012

In accordance with Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Republic of Slovenia declares that diplomatic and consular agents of foreign States are not permitted to effect the service of documents within the territory of Slovenia unless the document is to be served upon a national of the State in which the documents originate.
In accordance with Article 10 of the Convention, the Republic of Slovenia declares that the service of documents pursuant to Article 10, item a), is only permitted if judicial documents are sent to the addressee by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt and the documents are written in, or accompanied by, a translation into the Slovene language.
In accordance with Article 10 of the Convention, the Republic of Slovenia objects to the use of the methods of transmission pursuant to Article 10, items b) and c).
In accordance with Article 15, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Republic of Slovenia declares that notwithstanding the provisions of Article 15, paragraph 1, a Slovenian judge may give judgment even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received, if all conditions under Article 15, paragraph 2, of the Convention have been met.
In accordance with Article 16, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the Republic of Slovenia declares that applications for relief as set out in Article 16 of the Convention will not be entertained if filed more than one year following the date of judgment.

Spain

04-06-1987

1) The Spanish State declares that its judges, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 15, may give judgment even if no certificate of service or delivery of documents has been received, if all the conditions enumerated in the said Article 15, paragraph 2, are fulfilled.
2) The Spanish State declares that the time of expiration, referred to in Article 16, is sixteen months from the date of the judgment.

26-08-1997

Spain does not recognise the Supreme Court of Gibraltar as an Authority for the purpose of this Convention. Accordingly, any documents transmitted by that organ will be considered null and void.

Objection United Kingdom, 28-10-1997

... refer to the Ministry's Note No 5/1997 of 1 September 1997 communicating the recent declaration by Spain to the effect that it does not recognise the Supreme Court of Gibraltar as an authority for the purposes of the Convention.
Under Article 18 of the Convention a Contracting State may designate "other authorities in addition to the Central Authority and shall determine the extent of their competence". The Registrar of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar was designated as such authority for Gibraltar by the United Kingdom in 1970.
The Kingdom of Spain ratified the Convention in 1987, and has made no previous objection to the United Kingdom's pre-existing designation of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar. In such circumstances, the United Kingdom is of the view that Spain may not object legitimately to this designation now. Thus the Supreme Court of Gibraltar remains the United Kingdom's designated authority for Gibraltar for the purposes of the Convention.

Sri Lanka

31-08-2000

c) For purposes of Article 7, the documents should be in the English language.
d) For purposes of Article 8, the service of judicial documents through diplomatic or consular channels should be limited only in respect of the nationals of the State in which the documents originate.
f) For purposes of Article 10, Sri Lanka has no objection to the procedure set out in Paragraph (b) thereof. However it does not agree to the procedure set out in Paragraphs (a) and (c).
g) In terms of Article 15, Sri Lanka wishes to declare that the Judge may proceed to give judgement even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received, provided the conditions set out in Article 15 are fulfilled.

Sweden

02-08-1969

c) Swedish authorities are not obliged to assist in serving documents transmitted by using any of the methods referred to in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of art. 10.
By virtue of the third paragraph of art. 5 of the Convention the Central Authority requires that any document to be served under the first paragraph of the same article must be written in or translated into Swedish.

Switzerland

02-11-1994

Re article 1
1. With regard to article 1, Switzerland takes the view that the Convention applies exclusively to the Contracting States. In particular, it believes that documents which are effectively addressed to a person resident abroad cannot be served on a legal entity who is not authorised to receive them in the country in which they were drawn up without derogating from articles 1 and 15, first paragraph, of the Convention.
Re article 5, third paragraph
3. Switzerland declares that in cases where the addressee does not voluntarily accept a document, it cannot officially be served on him or her in accordance with article 5, first paragraph, unless it is in the language of the authority addressed, i.e. in German, French or Italian, or accompanied by a translation into one of these languages, depending on the part of Switzerland in which the document is to be served (cf. annex).
Re articles 8 and 10
5. In accordance with article 21, second paragraph (a), Switzerland declares that it is opposed to the use in its territory of the methods of transmission provided for in articles 8 and 10.

Tunisia

10-07-2017

Firstly, the Republic of Tunisia is opposed to the use of the method of service referred to in Article 8 of the Convention upon persons other than the nationals of the State in which the documents originate;
Secondly, the Republic of Tunisia accepts the provisions of Article 15, second paragraph, of the Convention;
Thirdly, the Republic of Tunisia declares that the application for relief, mentioned in Article 16 of the Convention, will not be entertained if it is filed after 12 months following the date of the judgment.

Türkiye

28-02-1972

4. The Government of the Republic of Turkey declares that diplomatic or consular agents may effect service in accordance with article 8 of the Convention only on their own nationals.
5. The Government of the Republic of Turkey declares its opposition to the methods of service set out in article 10 of the Convention.
6. The Government of the Republic of Turkey declares that notwithstanding the provisions of article 15, paragraph 1, if the conditions referred to in article 15, paragraph 2 are fulfilled, its courts may give judgment.
7. In accordance with article 16, paragraph 3, the Government of the Republic of Turkey declares that the applications referred to in article 16, paragraph 2 will not be entertained if they are filed after the expiration of one year following the date of the judgment.

Ukraine

01-02-2001

3) on Article 8 of the Convention:
service of judicial documents through diplomatic or consular agents of another State within the territory of Ukraine may be effected only upon nationals of the State in which the documents originate;
5) on Article 10 of the Convention:
Ukraine will not use methods of transmission of judicial documents provided for in Article 10 of the Convention;
6) on Article 15 of the Convention:
if all the conditions provided for in the second paragraph of the Article 15 of the Convention are fulfilled, the judge, notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 15 of the Convention, may give judgment even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received;
7) on Article 16 of the Convention:
application for relief will not be entertained in Ukraine if it is filed after the expiration of one year following the date of the judgment.

03-08-2004

Amendment of the English text of the reservation of Ukraine on Article 10:
(5.) on Article 10 of the Convention:
Ukraine will not use on its territory methods of transmission of judicial documents provided for in Article 10 of the Convention.

16-10-2015

In February 2014 the Russian Federation launched armed aggression against Ukraine and occupied a part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, and today exercises effective control over certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine. These actions are in gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations and constitute a threat to international peace and security. The Russian Federation, as the Aggressor State and Occupying Power, bears full responsibility for its actions and their consequences under international law.
The United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/68/262 of 27 March 2014 confirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders. The United Nations also called upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.
In this regard, Ukraine states that from 20 February 2014 and for the period of temporary occupation by the Russian Federation of a part of the territory of Ukraine - the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol – as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation committed against the Ukraine and until the complete restoration of the constitutional law and order and effective control by Ukraine over such occupied territory, as well as over certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine as a result of the aggression of the Russian Federation, the application and implementation by Ukraine of the obligations under the above Conventions, as applied to the aforementioned occupied and uncontrolled territory of Ukraine, is limited and is not guaranteed.
Documents or requests made or issued by the occupying authorities of the Russian Federation, its officials at any level in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and by the illegal authorities in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine, are null and void and have no legal effect regardless of whether they are presented directly or indirectly through the authorities of the Russian Federation.
The provisions of the Conventions regarding the possibility of direct communication or interaction do not apply to the territorial organs of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, as well as in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine. The procedure of the relevant communication is determined by the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv.

09-03-2022

In view of the ongoing aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, Ukraine hereby informs the Depositary […] of the inability to guarantee the fulfilment by the Ukrainian side of obligations [under the above Convention] to the full extent for the period of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation and the martial law in place in the territory of Ukraine until complete termination of the encroachment upon the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine.

01-12-2023

[The aforementioned treaty is] implemented on the territory of Ukraine in full, with the exception of the territories where hostilities are (were) conducted or temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation, on which it is impossible to fully guarantee the Ukrainian Party's fulfillment of its obligations under [this treaty] as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, as well as the introduction of martial law on the territory of Ukraine until the complete cessation of encroachment on the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of the borders of Ukraine.
The regularly updated list of territories where hostilities are (were) conducted, or temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation is at the link below:
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z1668-22#Text

United Kingdom

17-11-1967

(d) With reference to the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article 10 of the Convention, documents for service through official channels will be accepted in the United Kingdom only by the central or additional authorities and only from judicial, consular or diplomatic officers of other Contracting States.
(e) The United Kingdom declares its acceptance of the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 15 of the Convention.
(f) In accordance with the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 16 of the Convention, the United Kingdom declares, in relation to Scotland only, that applications for setting aside judgments on the grounds that the defendant did not have knowledge of the proceedings in sufficient time to defend the action will not be entertained if filed more than one year after the date of judgment.
The authorities designated by the United Kingdom will require all documents forwarded to them for service under the provisions of the Convention to be in duplicate and, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention, will require the documents to be written in, or translated into, the English language.
A notification under the second and third paragraphs of Article 29 regarding the extension of the Convention to the territories for the international relations of which the United Kingdom is responsible will be addressed to the Royal Netherlands Government in due course.

20-05-1970

(for Annex mentioned below see Authorities section, same date)
(d) With reference to the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article 10 of the Convention, documents sent for service through official channels will be accepted in a territory listed in the Annex by the designated authority and only from judicial, consular or diplomatic officers of other Contracting States.
(e) The acceptance by the United Kingdom of the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 15 of the Convention shall equally apply to the territories named in the Annex.
The authorities designated in the Annex will require all documents forwarded to them for service under the provisions of the Convention to be in duplicate and, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention, will require the documents to be written in, or translated into, the English language.

Declarations for Hong Kong
(d) With reference to the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article 10 of the Convention, documents sent for service through official channels will be accepted in Hong Kong only by the central or additonal authority and only from judicial, consular or diplomatic officers of other Contracting States.
(e) The acceptance by the United Kingdom of the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 15 of the Convention shall equally apply to Hong Kong.
The authorities designated in paragraphs (a) to (c) will require all documents forwarded to them for service under the provisions of the Convention to be in duplicate and, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention, will require the documents to be written in, or translated into, the English language.

03-08-1982

Declarations for Anguilla:
(d) with reference to the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article 10 of the Convention, documents sent for service through official channels will be accepted by the designated authority and only from judicial, consular or diplomatic officers of other contracting States.
(e) the acceptance by the United Kingdom of the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 15 of the Convention shall apply to Anguilla.
The designated authority will require all documents forwarded to it for service under the provisions of the Convention to be in duplicate and, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention, will require the documents to be written in, or translated into, the English language.

02-03-1983

Declarations for Saint Christopher and Nevis:
d) with reference to the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article 10 of the Convention, documents sent for service through official channels will be accepted by the designated authority and only from judicial, consular or diplomatic officers of other contracting states;
e) the acceptance by the United Kingdom of the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 15 of the Convention shall apply to Saint Christopher and Nevis.
The designated authority will require all documents forwarded to it for service under the provisions of the Convention to be in duplicate and, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention, will require the documents to be written in, or translated into, the English language.

11-06-1997

... in accordance with the Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong signed on 19 December 1984, the Government of the United Kingdom will restore Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China with effect from 1 July 1997. The Government of the United Kingdom will continue to have international responsibility for Hong Kong until that date. Therefore, from that date the Government of the United Kingdom will cease to be responsible for the international rights and obligations arising from the application of the Convention to Hong Kong.

United States of America

24-08-1967

3. In accordance with the second paragraph of Article 15, it is declared that the judge may, notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 15, give judgment even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received, if all the conditions specified in subdivisions (a), (b) and (c) of the second paragraph of Article 15 are fulfilled.
4. In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 16, it is declared that an application under Article 16 will not be entertained if it is filed (a) after the expiration of the period within which the same may be filed under the procedural regulations of the court in which the judgment has been entered, or (b) after the expiration of one year following the date of the judgment, whichever is later.
5. In accordance with Article 29, it is declared that the Convention shall extend to all the States of the United States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

23-04-1970

United States Marshals will charge a standard fee of $ 15.00 for their services under the Convention.
Therefore, each request for service should be accompanied by an international money order made payable to the "Treasurer of the United States" in the sum of $ 15.00.
The United States Marshals only have access to persons who are physically present within their areas of jurisdiction. Therefore, it will not be possible for them to effect service on United States citizens or residents of the United States who are temporarily outside of the country either by reason of Service with the Armed Forces of the United States, employment for the United States Government, or in some other capacity.

25-03-1971

The requirement that each request for service be accompanied by an international money order made payable to the "Treasurer of the United States" in the sum of $ 15.00 was not intended to include international postal money orders. The use of postal money orders is not feasible because the negotiable instrument does not physically accompany the request and is extremely difficult to correlate with a particular request for service. The appropriate means to remit prepayment of the Marshal's fee is an international money order or check - preferably a bank or certified check - which can accompany the request until service is made.

29-06-1978

As of June 28, 1978, the United States will not charge a fee for service of judicial documents which it receives from any State party to the Convention which does not impose a charge for the service of documents sent from the United States for service under the Convention.

17-07-2003

... inform .... of certain changes to the way judicial assistance is afforded to foreign tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals by the Government of the United States.
Specifically this diplomatic note sets forth a new process by which requests from foreign tribunals for service of process in civil and commercial matters will be handled in the United States and supercedes the process described in previous declarations and communications of the United States. This change will affect countries party to the Hague Convention on the Service of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters and the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory and Additional Protocol, as well as countries not party to either multilateral treaty on service of process.
The Department of Justice of the United States of America has informed the Department of State that it is delegating the service of process function to a private contractor, Process Forwarding International of Seattle in the state of Washington. This procedural change does not imply the formal designation of new Central Authority for either the Hague Service Convention or the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory, but simply reflects the outsourcing of certain activities conducted by the Central Authority, which formally remains the U.S. Department of Justice.
Process Forwarding International will be the only private process server company authorized to act on behalf of the United States to receive requests for service, proceed to serve the documents, and complete the certificate of service. Process Forwarding International will be responsible for executing requests for service of process in the following areas: the United States (the fifty states and the District of Columbia), Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Personal service will be the preferred method used on all requests. In the event personal service is impossible to effect, Process Forwarding International will serve process by such other method or methods as may be permitted under the law of the jurisdiction. In addition, Process Forwarding International is required to complete service of documents for return to the foreign requesting authority within six weeks of receipt.
Beginning June 1, 2003, requests for service of process should be transmitted to Process Forwarding International, 910 5th Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98104 USA, telephone: [phone]; Fax [phone]; E-mail: [e-mail]; Website: http://www.hagueservice.net. Requests for service must be transmitted in duplicate with an appropriate translation (one set will be served and the other will be returned by Process Forwarding International with a certificate of service). The full name and street address for the person or entity to be served must be included.
There will be a fee for service of process requests from foreign entities, including from countries party to the Hague Service Convention, and countries not party to any multilateral treaty on service of process. No fee will be charged at this time for requests under the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory and Additional Protocol because the United States agreed to no-fee services under these instruments on accession to the Convention. The service fees for requests under the Hague Service Convention and requests from countries not party to any treaty on service of process are:
Year Description Fee US$
2003 Personal service or service by mail $89.00
2004 Personal service or service by mail $91.00
2005 Personal service or service by mail $93.00
2006-2007 Personal service or service by mail $95.00
Payment of fees may be made by Visa, Mastercard, most international credit cards, bank transfers, international money orders and government-issued checks payable to Process Forwarding International. Personal checks are not accepted. All service requests unaccompanied by proper payment in the manner indicated will be returned without processing. The website for Process Forwarding International provides specific guidance on methods of payment. It will also be possible to check on the status of a service request on the website.
The requests described above received by the United States after June 1, 2003, will be sent to Process Forwarding International, where they may be rejected for non-compliance with the new fee requirement.
Countries not party to the Hague Service Convention or Inter-American Convention and Additional Protocol on service of documents may continue to send requests for service through the diplomatic channel, but they must be accompanied by the fee noted above. These requests will be sent to Process Forwarding International for further handling. It should be noted, however, that use of the diplomatic channel is obligatory, and countries not party to these service Conventions may prefer to send their requests and receive their certificate of service directly from Process Forwarding International. The outsourcing of these activities formerly provided by the U.S. Department of Justice will increase efficiency. The Department of State therefore encourages all countries to avoid the use of the diplomatic channel for routine matters and take advantage directly of the new procedures.
The United States notes that there is no requirement under U.S. federal law that requests for judicial assistance be referred to the Department of State or the Department of Justice's contractor for execution. The United States has no objection to the informal delivery of such documents by members of diplomatic or consular missions in the United States, through the mails or by privat persons if that would be effective under applicable law, provided no compulsion is used ...

11-03-2015

[…] inform the Ministry … of certain developments regarding the way judicial assistance is afforded to foreign tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals by the Government of the United States.
Since 2003, the Department of Justice of the United States of America has contracted the service of process function performed by the Central Authority to a private contractor to handle requests for service of process in civil and commercial matters in the United States pursuant to the Hague Service Convention.
The Department of Justice of the United States of America has informed the Department of State that, on February 1, 2015, it renewed its contract for the service of process function with ABC Legal, which does business as Process Forwarding International located in Seattle, Washington. The new contract will run through January 31, 2016, with the option to extend the contract through January 31, 2020. The use of a private contractor to perform the service of process function does not imply the designation of a new U.S. Central Authority for the Hague Service Convention, but rather reflects the delegation of certain activities conducted by the U.S. Central Authority, which remains the U.S. Department of Justice.
Process Forwarding International is the only private process server company authorized to act on behalf of the United States to receive requests for service, proceed to serve the documents, and complete the certificate of service. Process Forwarding International is responsible for executing requests for service of process in the following areas: the United States (the fifty states and the District of Columbia), Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Personal service will be the preferred method used in executing all requests. In the event personal service is impracticable to effect, Process Forwarding International will serve process by such other method or methods as may be permitted under the law of the jurisdiction in which service is to be effected. As was the case in previous contract, Process Forwarding International is required to complete service of documents for return tom the foreign requestor within 30 business days of receipt. In addition, under the new contract, Process Forwarding International will accept requests for expedited service, service within seven (7) business days of receipt, without charging an additional fee. Expedited service must be specifically requested; if it is not, service will be completed within 30 business days of receipt.
All requests for service of process should be transmitted to:
Process Forwarding International
633 Yesler Way
Seattle, Washington 98104
USA
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Website: http://www.hagueservice.net
Requests for service must be transmitted in duplicate with an appropriate translation (one set will be served and the other will be returned by Process Forwarding International with a certificate of service). The full name and street address for the person or entity to be served must be included. For requests made under the Hague Service Convention, the Model Form for that Convention must be used.
There will continue to be a fee for service of process requests from persons in countries party to the Hague Service Convention. The service fees for requests under the Hague Service Convention will remain $95 through the expiration of the contract on January 31, 2016. There is no additional fee for expedited service requests. Payment of fees may be made by Visa, MasterCard, most international credit cards, bank transfers, international money orders and government-issued checks payable to Process Forwarding International. Personal checks are not accepted.
All service requests must comply with the payment schedule and method of payment described on Process Forwarding International’s website. All service requests unaccompanied by proper payment in the manner indicated will be returned without processing. The website for Process Forwarding International provides specific guidance on methods of payment.
It will also be possible to check on the status of a service request on Process Forwarding International’s website.
The United States notes that there is no requirement under U.S. federal law that requests for service be sent to Process Forwarding International. The United States has no objection to the informal delivery of such documents by members of diplomatic or consular missions in the United States, through the mails or by private persons if that would be effective under applicable law, provided no compulsion is used.

28-01-2020

(…) inform the Ministry (…) of certain developments regarding the way judicial assistance is afforded to foreign tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals by the Government of the United States of America.
The Department of Justice of the United States of America has informed the Department of State that its Office of International Judicial Assistance has renewed its contract for service of international judicial and extrajudicial documents with ABC Legal Services (ABC Legal). The new contract started on January 15, 2020, with options to extend through January 31, 2025.
Since 2003, the Department of Justice has assigned the ministerial act of serving and transmitting documents in response to service requests submitted pursuant to the Hague Service Convention to ABC Legal (formerly known as PFI or Process Forwarding International). The U.S. Central Authority remains the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of International Judicial Assistance, notwithstanding the assignment of certain service functions to a private contractor.
ABC Legal ceased operating as Process Forwarding International (PFI) and thus all service requests should refer only to ABC Legal Services. All requests for service on private individuals and companies should be mailed to ABC Legal at the address below or submitted electronically:
ABC Legal Services
633 Yesler Way
Seattle, WA 98104
United States of America
Telephone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Website: https://www.abclegal.com/international-service-of-process
Requests for service on the United States Government itself, which includes its officials (when named in an official capacity), departments, agencies, or instrumentalities, should be mailed directly to the Department of Justice's Office of International Judicial Assistance:
Office of International Judicial Assistance
U.S. Department of Justice
Benjamin Franklin Station
P.O. Box 14360
Washington, D.C. 20044
United States of America
Telephone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Website: https://www.justice.gov/civil/office-international-judicial-assistance-5
ABC Legal is responsible for executing requests for service in the following areas: the United States (the 50 states and the District of Columbia), Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Requests for service of judicial or extrajudicial documents on private individuals and companies that are sent pursuant to the Hague Service Convention must include a $95.00 payment. Failure to include proof of the required payment may result in rejection of the request for service. In addition to complying with the relevant requirements for the method of service chosen, requests should provide a contact email and phone number for the foreign applicant so ABC Legal can attempt to correct any deficiencies before returning a request unexecuted, if needed. ABC Legal can accept requests for service by email or uploaded online through their website so long as proof of payment is included, or if payment is made online. The Hague Service Convention Model Form must be included in all requests for service transmitted under that Convention.
For detailed information on requests for service, please visit the Office of International Judicial Assistance's website at https://www.justice.gov/civil/office-international-judicial-assistance-0 and ABC Legal's updated website at https://www.abclegal.com/international-service-of-process.
The United States notes there is no requirement under U.S. Federal law that requests for service on private individuals and companies in the United States be sent to ABC Legal for execution. The United States has no objection to the informal delivery of such documents by members of diplomatic or consular missions in the United States, or through mail, or by private persons - if effective under applicable law - provided no compulsion is used.

Venezuela

29-10-1993

1. With regard to Article 5 (b) 3:
The Republic of Venezuela declares that notices and documents and other items annexed to the notices will be accepted only when they are properly translated into the Spanish language.
2. With regard to Article 8:
The Republic of Venezuela does not agree to the exercise of the faculty provided for in the first paragraph of this Article within its territory, in respect of other persons who are not nationals of the country of origin.
3. With regard to Article 10 (a):
The Republic of Venezuela does not agree to the transmission of documents through postal channels.
4. With regard to Article 15 (a), (b) and (c):
The Republic of Venezuela declares that Venezuelan judges shall be empowered to decide when the conditions in sections (a), (b) and (c) of this Article are fulfilled, even though they have not received any communication evidencing either the notice or transfer, or delivery of the document.
5. With regard to Article 16:
The Republic of Venezuela declares that the request allowed by the third paragraph of this Article shall not be admissible if it is made after the expiration of the period specified in Venezuelan law.

Vietnam

16-03-2016

2. In accordance with the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention, the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam is opposed to the service of documents provided for in Article 8 of the Convention within its territory, unless the documents are to be served upon a national of the State in which the documents originate.
3. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam objects to the use of such methods of service of documents provided for in paragraph b and paragraph c of Article 10 of the Convention.
4. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam does not oppose to the service of documents through postal channels mentioned in paragraph a of Article 10 of the Convention if the documents forwarded via postal channels are sent via registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt.
5. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam declares that a judge, notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 15 of the Convention, may give judgment even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received, if all the conditions provided for in the second paragraph of Article 15 are fulfilled.
6. The request made using the Model Form under the Convention to Viet Nam shall be either completed in the Vietnamese language or accompanied by a Vietnamese translation. Except for the documents to be served upon a national of a State in which the documents originate in accordance with Article 8 or paragraph a of Article 10 of the Convention, all documents to be served in Viet Nam must be either in the Vietnamese language or accompanied by a Vietnamese translation, in which case the signature of the translator must be duly verified or notarized.