Austria’s Interesting Reservation to the Service Convention

Austria ratified the Hague Service Convention a week ago. As Mayela Celis noted at Conflict of Laws, Austria made an interesting reservation at the time of ratification:

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.

What are the implications for US practice? Under the FSIA, § 1608(a), when the defendant is a foreign state or its subdivision, a plaintiff must attempt the prescribed methods of service in a specified order: first, the plaintiff must attempt service according to any “special arrangement for service between the plaintiff and the foreign state.” if one exists. Second, the plaintiff must attempt service via “an applicable international convention on service of judicial documents.” Third, the plaintiff must send the summons and complaint “by any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs.” Fourth, if all else fails, the plaintiff must serve process via diplomatic channels.

I don’t think it is safe to skip step (2), at least right away. The reservation is not expressly authorized by the Convention, and so under Article 20 of the Vienna Convention, other states can either accept it or object to it, and if the other state takes no action, it is not deemed to have accepted the reservation for a year following the date of the reservation. But eventually, barring an objection, I think it will be all right to skip step (2). I do not think that the reservation will make it safe to skip step (3), even if the reservation is eventually accepted, though. The effect of the reservation is really a question of public international law that is, as they say, “outside my wheelhouse,” but if I understand the law correctly, the effect of a reservation is simply to modify the provisions of the treaty to which it relates. It doesn’t seem that acceptance of the reservation would create a new agreement between the United States and Austria to serve process in FSIA cases only via diplomatic channels.

2 responses to “Austria’s Interesting Reservation to the Service Convention”

  1. Wallishauser Roswitha

    Der Vorbehalt zur Zustellung an die Republik Österreich, lautet wie folgt : „Das Übereinkommen über die Zustellung von gerichtlichen und außergerichtlichen Dokumenten im Ausland in Zivil- oder Handelssachen vom 15. November 1965 gilt nicht für die Zustellung von an die Republik Österreich gerichteten Dokumenten, einschließlich ihrer politischen Unterabteilungen, ihrer Behörden und der in ihrem Namen handelnden Personen; Diese Zustellung erfolgt auf diplomatischem Wege, dadurch sollen berechtigte zivile Klagen die nicht dem Hoheitsrecht unterfallen verhindert werden , somit kehrt Österreich zur absoluten Immunität zurück !
    Das Urteil Nr. 156/04 vom 17.07.2012 des Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte wurde durch Verweigerung der Zustellung Österreichs an die Vereinigten Staaten nicht vollzogen !

    1. Thank you for your comment, Mrs. Wallishauser. Ultimately Austria cannot avoid service of process in a US case, since under US law service will be deemed effective once it is made through the diplomatic channel. It just will take longer than it should.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Thank you for commenting! By submitting a comment, you agree that we can retain your name, your email address, your IP address, and the text of your comment, in order to publish your name and comment on Letters Blogatory, to allow our antispam software to operate, and to ensure compliance with our rules against impersonating other commenters.