aperçu des réponses au questionnaire accompagnant la ... - HCCH

Question Réponse / Reply État / State
12. Jud. /
extrajud. docs.
12.1. Distinct.
made?
concevoir que seul le demandeur à la signification soit habile à solliciter un huissier de justice (ou équivalent).
L’interprétation de l’art. 10 milite donc pour une double condition d’application : 1°) demande par le requérant seul,
à l’exclusion de toute autre personne; 2°) nécessité d’une instance en cours et corrélation entre le demandeur et
l’instance. La question qui se pose est de savoir si l’avocat peut se substituer au demandeur. Dans l’absolue l’avocat,
et, davantage encore en la Common Law, semble pouvoir être en mesure d’assurer cette mission en vertu de son
mandat de représentation. Peut-être alors, conviendrait-il d’adopter un texte plus précis, car certains membres
de l’UIHJ s’interrogent sur l’opportunité d’accepter un acte lorsqu’il est envoyé par un avocat.
No / Non
12.2. Statistics? Not available.
The United States is quite flexible in interpreting what documents may be served under the Convention, and will
accept judicial and extrajudicial documents for service, so long as the request emanates from a court, tribunal or
even administrative body and relates to a judicatorial proceeding.
German law makes a distinction between judicial and extrajudicial documents. Extrajudicial documents are, in
particular, enforceable notary certification, notary charges invoices and declarations of intent (cf. section
132 of the German Civil Code - Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch), such as notices to quit. Extrajudicial documents are also
served pursuant to the Convention.
Québec [F] Certains documents n'ont pas besoin en droit québécois d'être signifiés; ils peuvent être notifiés par
remise ou par courrier. L’AC du Québec fait procéder à la signification ou à la notification des actes qu'elles reçoit. /
[E] Some documents do not need to be served under Quebec law; they may be notified by being delivered or by
mail. The CA of Quebec proceeds to serve or notify the documents it receives.
PEI: No. Alberta: Yes, there is a distinction between these two types of documents. The Convention is applicable to
both types.
Polish legislation makes a distinction between judicial documents producing procedural effects and those that do
not. The Convention is applied to both.
The distinction is not very clear, specially not in the area of service of documents. The law leaves a wide range of
discretion for the judge to decide which document has to be served into the “own hands of a party “ (a “higher” form
of service suggesting that the document produces procedural effects) and which shall be served by “simple” service.
The distinction is even less clear in an international setting, because, as a general rule, Slovak authorities accept the
form of service under the law of the requested State (i.e. they do not require specific method of service under
Art. 5(1)(b) for “service into own hands”). That leads to the practice that Convention is used for all documents to be
served abroad. The only distinction being made that documents which do not produce procedural effects are usually
requested to be served by simple remit (voluntary acceptance).
Bulgarie, Chine, Chine
(Hongkong), Chine
(Macao), Espagne,
Finlande (see full
reply), France, Italie,
Japon, Koweït, Lituanie,
Luxembourg, Pays-Bas,
Portugal, Suède, Suisse
Etats-Unis
Allemagne
Canada
Pologne
Rép. Slovaque
Ukrainian authorities apply the Convention to both types of judicial documents. Ukraine
Allemagne, Bélarus,
Bulgarie (not more than
Page 42 of 69