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

Question Réponse / Reply État / State
The Netherlands does not have dual-dating problems with the Convention in connection with the fictitious
service system. In terms of designated periods, only the service date in the Netherlands is relevant. The notification
date abroad is only important in terms of the requirements regarding time specified in Article 15 of the Convention.
We have no views on dual-dating systems, although typically United States courts will look to the actual date that a
defendant has received the service of process as the operative date of service.
[F] Québec : Le problème ne s'étant pas posé en droit québécois, la solution du système de la double date nous
apparaît inutilement complexe. IPE : Aucun problème. Alberta : Cela semble une approche raisonnable.
[E] Quebec: Since the problem has not arisen in Quebec law, the solution of the double date system seems to us to
be unnecessarily complicated. PEI: No problem. Alberta: It seems like a reasonable approach.
Pays-Bas
Etats-Unis
Canada
The dual-dating system is not applicable in our judicial system and is not easy to comprehend it. Bulgarie
It is unknown in our legal system and is not easily comprehended. Since the responsibility of the service never
lies with a party, we cannot imagine a situation where such system would have any practical consequences in our
civil procedure.
We would not be in favour of introducing a system with double dates for determining the date of service. The
Convention should not try to harmonise the domestic rules on service but only facilitate cooperation between courts.
Under the law in Hong Kong, time starts to run when service is completed. We are not keen on the dual
dating system. In addition to the arguments against the dual-dating system discussed in the last paragraph of
section II,1,E,f of the General Comments prepared by the Permanent Bureau, we are also concerned about the need
to ascertain the foreign law with regard to the determination of the date of service. This would involve the
introduction of expert evidence on a simple matter such as the date of service. The cost and time involved may not
be justified. This may also unduly prejudice the interests of the plaintiff.
The dual-dating system does not exist in the MSAR legal system. Therefore, even if in theory some of the
benefits arising from the implementation of such a system can be recognized, in practice, it would be very
difficult to implement such a system as it implies modification of our domestic procedural rules.
The date of service is normally the date when the documents are delivered to the addressee. We would not be in
favour of introducing a system with double dates.
Germany uses the system of a uniform date of service. Decisive in this is not the transmission of the document to
the Central Authority or to a court, but rather the date of the service itself, or otherwise the direct knowledge
thereof on the part of the addressee. Compared to those States which use the date of the transmission of the
document to an authority as the date of service, problems have arisen in certain cases where the date of the actual
service on the addressee with reference to domestic law was not additionally specified on the documents. After all,
the Convention itself also requires that the documents, including the request section on the essential content of the
documents, are to be delivered to the addressee (cf. Art. 5(4)), and that this delivery is to be documented in the
certificate of due performance of service (“The documents referred to in the request have been delivered to:...").
In relation to EC Regulation 1348/2000 Portugal declared its intention to derogate from article 9 (2) on the grounds
of the imprecision and uncertainty than can result from the determination of two different dates of
service, set by reference to the laws of two different countries, to the detriment of legal certainty.
L’Union considère que le régime de la double date, sauf à imposer un système, à l’instar du Règlement 1348 de l’UE,
est insoluble. En effet, suivant la conception qu’épouse chaque Etat sur la date de prise d’effet de la notification ou
de la signification, le point de départ des délais peut varier. La France s’est adaptée au Règlement en modifiant son
code de procédure mais beaucoup de pays continuent à appliquer leur propres règles. Au demeurant, le système
Rép. Slovaque
Suède; voir aussi
Finlande et Japon
Chine (Hongkong)
Chine (Macao)
Norvège
Allemagne
Portugal
UIHJ
Page 44 of 69