7 FAM 900 Appendix A
u.s. supreme court decisions regarding international
judicial assistance and cooperation
(CT:CON-804; 04-30-2018)
(Office of Origin: CA/OCS)
7 FAM 910 Appendix A introduction
(CT:CON-795; 03-06-2018)
The U.S. Supreme Court has considered the issues of
international judicial assistance and cooperation on various occasions. This
appendix compiles these cases in chronological order. They include:
(1) Decisions on the Hague Convention on the Service
Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters
(Hague Service Convention); and
(2) Decisions on the Hague Convention on the Taking of
Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters (Hague Evidence.
7 FAM 920 appendix A Hague Service
Convention
(CT:CON-795; 03-06-2018)
a. In Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486
U.S. 694, 700 (1988) the U.S. Supreme Court read the Hague Service Convention
so as not to apply if the documents to be served did not have to be taken
physically outside of the United States. It is only when documents must, as a
necessary part of service, be transmitted abroad that the Convention applies.
b. In Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, No. 16254. Argued March
22, 2017Decided May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the
Hague Service Convention permits service of process by mail, so long as (1) the
receiving state has not objected to service by mail; and (2) service by mail is
authorized independently of the Hague Service Convention under the law of the
local jurisdiction in which the lawsuit is pending. This decision resolves a
long-standing uncertainty on the issue of whether the language used in the
relevant part of the treaty the freedom to send judicial documents, by
postal channels, directly to persons abroad covers sending documents in
order to serve process, despite the lack of an explicit reference to the word
service.
7 FAM 930 Appendix A Hague Evidence
Convention
(CT:CON-795; 03-06-2018)
In Socit Nationale Industrielle Arospatiale v. United
States District Court, 482 U.S. 522, 536 (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court held
that the Evidence Convention does not provide the exclusive or mandatory means
for obtaining evidence in the territory of another State party to the
Convention. Rather, the court found the Evidence Convention to be largely
supplemental to the available discovery procedures provided for by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court further held that litigants do not have to
attempt to use Convention procedures before initiating discovery under the
Federal Rules. The Court noted that in some cases Convention procedures could
be unduly time consuming, expensive, and less likely to produce needed evidence
than direct use of the Federal Rules. When determining whether to resort to
the Convention's procedures, courts should evaluate the facts of the case,
sovereign interests, and likelihood that the Convention's procedures will
produce the desired evidence.
7 FAM 940 Appendix A through 7 FAM 990 Appendix A Unassigned