Service abroad of documents: Hague Service Convention: Jurisdiction:
This case concerns the scope of the Convention on the Service Abroad of
Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nov. 15,
1965 (Hague Service Convention), 20 U. S. T. 361, T. I. A. S. No. 6638. The
purpose of that multilateral treaty is to simplify, standardize, and generally
improve the process of serving documents abroad. Preamble, ibid.; see Volkswagenwerk
Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U. S. 694, 698 (1988). To that
end, the Hague Service Convention specifies certain approved methods of service
and “pre-empts inconsistent methods of service” wherever it applies. Id.,
at 699. Today we address a question that has divided the lower courts: whether
the Convention prohibits service by mail. We hold that it does not.
In 2013, Water Splash sued Menon in state court in Texas (…) Because
Menon resided in Canada, Water Splash sought and obtained permission to effect
service by mail. After Menon declined to answer or otherwise enter an
appearance, the trial court issued a default judgment in favor of Water Splash.
Menon moved to set aside the judgment on the ground that she had not been
properly served, but the trial court denied the motion.
((…) Service of process (which we have defined as “a formal
delivery of documents that is legally sufficient to charge the defendant with
notice of a pending action”).
(…) Article 10 permits direct service by mail . . . unless the receiving
state objects to such service.
Dept. of State, Legal Considerations: International Judicial Assistance:
Service of Process (stating that “service by registered . . . mail . . . is an
option in many countries in the world,” but that it “should . . . not be used
in the countries party to the Hague Service Convention that objected to the
method described in Article 10(a) (postal channels)”), online at https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legalconsiderations/judicial/service-of-process.html
(all Internet materials as last visited May 19, 2017).
In short, the traditional tools of treaty interpretation unmistakably
demonstrate that Article 10(a) encompasses service by mail. To be clear, this
does not mean that the Convention affirmatively authorizes service by
mail. Article 10(a) simply provides that, as long as the receiving state does
not object, the Convention does not “interfere with . . . the freedom” to serve
documents through postal channels. In other words, in cases governed by the
Hague Service Convention, service by mail is permissible if two conditions are
met: first, the receiving state has not objected to service by mail; and
second, service by mail is authorized under otherwise-applicable law. See Brockmeyer,
383 F. 3d, at 803–804.
Secondary sources: B. Ristau, International Judicial Assistance
§4–1–4(2), p. 112 (1990 rev. ed.); Hague Conference on Private Int’l Law,
Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention ¶279, p. 91 (4th
ed. 2016).
(U.S.S.C., May 22, 2017, Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, Docket 16-254, J.
Alito. All other Members joined, except J. Gorsuch, who took no part in the
consideration or decision of the case).
Notifications
à l'étranger. La notification par poste peut être admise. Application de la
Convention de La Haye.
L'affaire débute
devant une cour de l'état du Texas. La demande est signifiée par voie postale à
la défenderesse, laquelle réside au Canada. Elle ne dépose pas de réponse et ne
comparaît pas. Un jugement par défaut est rendu en faveur du demandeur. La
défenderesse dépose une demande de relief, invoquant une notification affectée
d'un vice. La demande de relief est rejetée.
La Cour juge
en l'espèce que la Convention de La Haye permet une notification directe et par
poste à une partie, pour autant que l'état de dite partie permette une telle
notification. Le Département d'état s'est prononcé dans le même sens. Encore
faut-il que l'état du for le permette aussi, car la Convention se limite à
prévoir qu'elle n'interfère pas avec une notification postale si l'état du défendeur
permet l'usage de la voie postale.
No comments:
Post a Comment