Hague Conference on Private International Law

Special Commission on the Judgments Project

16 to 24 February 2017

Aide memoire of the Chair of the Special Commission

Introduction

1. From 16 to 24 February 2017, the Special Commission on the Judgments Project was
reconvened in The Hague. 1 The Special Commission was attended by 189 participants from
56 States and one Regional Economic Integration Organisation (REIO), representing Members
of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH). Also in attendance were six
non-Member States, and 19 international governmental and non-governmental organisations.

2. In accordance with the Conclusions and Recommendations of the March 2016 meeting of
the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference (the Council), the Special
Commission was reconvened to continue its work on preparing a draft Convention on the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. 2

3. At its February 2017 meeting, the Special Commission reviewed and discussed all
provisions in the June 2016 preliminary draft Convention, and considered a paper on Draft
General and Final Clauses prepared by the Permanent Bureau. 3 On the basis of those
documents, the Special Commission prepared a revised draft of the Convention which appears
as Annex I to this aide memoire (the February 2017 draft Convention).

4. The Special Commission recommends to Council that the February 2017 draft Convention
be further discussed at a third meeting of the Special Commission, which would be expected to
take place in The Hague from 13 to 17 November 2017.

5. This aide memoire is intended to accompany the February 2017 draft Convention, and to
assist with ongoing work on the Judgments Project. 4 It provides a brief overview of the progress
made at the February Special Commission, sets out some specific issues discussed, and
identifies some specific matters that require further consideration. It does not address all the
points discussed during the Special Commission.

The February 2017 draft Convention

6. Following an introduction by the Chair, the Special Commission discussed each of the
provisions of the June 2016 preliminary draft Convention. The February 2017 draft Convention
reflects the outcome of those discussions.

7. As explained below, in addition to clarifying and refining a number of provisions in the

preliminary draft Convention, the delegations foreshadowed the need for further consideration
of a number of particular provisions or aspects of particular provisions. It was also emphasised
that a number of provisions are interrelated, and that it will be necessary to review the draft
text as a whole to ensure that the overall balance is appropriate.

1
The Special Commission was first convened from 1 to 9 June 2016 (the 2016 Special Commission meeting).
The 2016 Special Commission meeting used the proposed draft text prepared by the Working Group on the
Judgments Project as its starting point. Following a discussion of all provisions, as well as a discussion on the
objectives and architecture of the draft Convention, the 2016 Special Commission meeting prepared a revised
draft (the 2016 preliminary draft Convention).
2
Conclusions and Recommendations of the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference (15 to 17
March 2016),Conclusion and Recommendations (C&R) No 12.
3
See Draft General and Final Clauses, Work. Doc. No 78, proposed by the Permanent Bureau, December
2016 available on the Secure Portal of the HCCH website under Special Commission Meetings, Special
Commission on the Judgments Project.
4
This is the second aide memoire of the Chair of the Special Commission. The first aide memoire was prepared
in June 2016 and accompanied the preliminary draft Convention. That aide memoire is available on the Secure
Portal of the HCCH website under Special Commission Meetings, Special Commission on the Judgments
Project, 2016 Special Commission on Judgments.
 2

Objectives and architecture of the February 2017 draft Convention

8. The Special Commission confirmed the objectives and architecture of the February 2017
draft Convention as recorded in the first aide memoire of the Chair of the Special Commission.

Relationship between the February 2017 draft Convention and the Choice of Court Convention

9. Following an introduction by the Chair, the relationship between the February 2017 draft
Convention and the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (the
Choice of Court Convention) was discussed. For information, a record of the Chairs remarks
on the current relationship between the February 2017 draft Convention and the Choice of Court
Convention appears as Annex II to this aide memoire.

10. The Special Commission considered a proposal dealing with non-exclusive and
asymmetric choice of court agreements. There was consensus that such a provision should be
added to the February 2017 draft Convention (see Art. 5(1)(p) of the February 2017 draft
Convention), and that Article 5(1)(p) should not apply to consumer and employment matters
(see Art. 5(2)(b) of the February 2017 draft Convention).

Chapter I - Scope and definitions

Civil or commercial matters

11. Following an introduction by the co-Rapporteurs of Preliminary Document No 4, 5 the

Special Commission discussed the concept of civil or commercial matters. The Special
Commission noted the desirability of substantial parts of Preliminary Document No 4 being
included in the Explanatory Report, and in particular the helpful discussion set out in
paragraphs 15, 40 and 41.

12. In relation to Article 2(5) of the February 2017 draft Convention, it should be clarified in
the Explanatory Report that the court addressed can proceed on the basis that a judgment
which it considers is inconsistent with an immunity is outside the scope of the Convention.

13. The Special Commission considered moving the reference to the words [i]t shall not
extend in particular to revenue, customs or administrative matters under Article 1(1) to
Article 3(3) of the February 2017 draft Convention. There was no consensus that this text
should be relocated.

Defamation

14. The Special Commission considered adding the words and privacy to Article 2(1)(k).
Following discussion about what might come within the scope of this term, and whether it should
be referred to in the text, these words were included in square brackets.

Judicial sale of ships

15. The Special Commission expressed its gratitude to the Comit Maritime International for
raising the issue of the judicial sale of ships. The desirability of addressing this topic in the
February 2017 draft Convention was discussed. The Special Commission did not consider that
the scope of the February 2017 draft Convention should be extended to address this topic.

Insolvency

16. The Special Commission considered making express reference to resolution of financial
institutions in Article 2(1)(e). There was consensus that Article 2(1)(e) should expressly refer
to this matter. The Special Commission asked the co-Rapporteurs to include in the Explanatory
Report an explanation of the matters that would come within the insolvency exclusion.

Intellectual property

5
Note on Article 1(1) of the 2016 Preliminary Draft Convention and the term civil or commercial matters,
Prel. Doc. No 4, December 2016 available on the Secure Portal of the HCCH website under Special
Commission Meetings, Special Commission on the Judgments Project.
 3

17. The Special Commission discussed the application of the future instrument to intellectual
property matters at length, both in the plenary and in a separate informal working group. It
was noted that further work is needed on questions of what intellectual property matters come
within the scope of the instrument, and on the drafting of provisions on matters that are within
scope. It was therefore not realistic to expect to reach consensus on IP provisions at this
meeting.

18. While it is generally undesirable to have a text with multiple variants, as that hinders
readability and comprehension, the Special Commission proceeded on the basis that the draft
text should include a set of proposals in relation to Articles 2, 5, 6 and 7 which capture the key
issues and facilitate further focussed discussion and intersessional work. The Special
Commission therefore decided to proceed on the basis that Article 2(1)(l), Article 5(1)(k),
5(1)(l) and 5(1)(m), Article 6(a) and Article 7(1)(g) and Article 12 of the February 2017 draft
Convention should be included in the text in square brackets to identify the key parameters for
future discussions.

Arbitration and related proceedings

19. Following a discussion of Article 8(2) and presentation of the outcome of discussion in an
informal working group, the Special Commission decided to proceed on the basis that:

no further provisions in relation to arbitration would be added to the February 2017 draft
Convention at this stage;

the Explanatory Report should reflect the policy consensus that this instrument should
not affect the application of the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) or other international
instruments relating to arbitration. The Explanatory Report should also provide an
explanation of the way in which Article 8(2) operates where a judgment has been given
by the court of origin following a ruling that an arbitration agreement is null and void,
inoperative or incapable of being performed.

20. The Special Commission also confirmed that this aide memoire should record the outcome
of the discussions in the informal working group, as follows:

Some participants expressed serious concerns that the relationship between the future
Convention and arbitration (arbitration agreements, arbitral awards) should be clarified.
Other participants expressed serious concerns about adding any words to the text which
are not contained in the Choice of Court Convention because it may give rise to an a
contrario interpretation of that Convention. Another issue raised was the possibility of
the arbitration community raising concerns about the Convention, if the draft text
includes specific provisions about these matters.

Consideration should be given to whether there are other forms of dispute resolution
which should be dealt with in the same manner as arbitration.

As noted above, there was consensus that this instrument should not affect the
application of the New York Convention. However, the inclusion in the draft text of a
provision to that effect (e.g., Art. Z of Work. Doc. No 147 6) requires further
consideration because it represents a departure from the Choice of Court Convention.

It is also necessary to consider whether there are other international instruments in

relation to arbitration which should be referred to, if a provision along the lines of
Article Z is included in the future Convention.

6
Available on the Secure Portal of the HCCH website under Special Commission Meetings, Special Commission
on the Judgments Project.
 4

Interim measures of protection

21. The possibility of expanding the scope of the future Convention to include interim
measures of protection was raised. There was consensus that the February 2017 draft
Convention should not be expanded in this way.

Common courts

22. The Special Commission discussed the need for a mechanism in the future Convention to
expressly include judgments given by courts common to two or more Contracting States, for
example certain EU courts dealing with intellectual property matters and regional appellate
courts. A proposal for a declaration mechanism was made. There was a substantial measure of
support for the inclusion of the provision reflected in Article 22 of the February 2017 draft
Convention, but the need for further consideration of this topic was noted. The Special
Commission decided to proceed on the basis that the provision should be added in the text in
square brackets at this stage.

Definition of judgment and court

23. A drafting clarification was made to Article 3(1)(b) of the February 2017 draft Convention
to replace it with that decision.

24. A proposal for a definition of the term court in Article 3(1) of the February 2017 draft
Convention was also considered. There was some sympathy for the idea of seeking to include
a definition of court, but a number of participants noted the difficulty of articulating an
appropriate definition. There was not sufficient support for the proposed definition to be
included in the text at this stage.

Chapter II Recognition and enforcement

General provisions

25. An amendment was made to Article 4(4) to make it clearer and to improve the
correspondence between the English and French texts.

Bases for recognition and enforcement

26. The Special Commission discussed the desirability of removing the square brackets from
Article 5(1)(n) of the 2016 preliminary draft Convention and clarifying the wording of Article
5(1)(c) to expressly exclude counterclaims. There was consensus that such amendments should
be made (see Art. 5(1)(o) and 5(1)(c) of the February 2017 draft Convention).

27. Removing the square brackets from Article 5(1)(b) of the February 2017 draft Convention
was discussed. There was consensus that those brackets should be removed.

28. An informal working group was convened to consider Article 5(1)(f) on tacit submission.
There was consensus that:

the square brackets should be removed;

the words entered an appearance should be replaced with the words argued on the
merits. The Explanatory Report should include some examples of appearances that
would not be considered to be arguments on the merits;

the provision should be amended to make reference to consenting to the jurisdiction

within the timeframe provided in the law of the State of origin, unless it is evident that
an objection to jurisdiction or to the exercise of jurisdiction would not have succeeded
under the law of that State;

Article 5(1)(f) should not apply to matters relating to consumer and employment
contracts (see Art. 5(2)(b) of the February 2017 draft Convention).
 5

29. Some concern was expressed about the phrase unless the defendant's activities in
relation to the transaction clearly did not constitute a purposeful and substantial connection to
that State in Article 5(1)(g). However there was no consensus that any amendment should be
made to this limb of the provision. The Special Commission also discussed some amendments
to Article 5(1)(g) aimed at clarifying the provision. There was consensus that such amendments
should be made (see Art. 5(1)(g) of the February 2017 draft Convention.)

30. The Special Commission discussed the desirability of removing the square brackets from
Article 5(1)(i), and amending the provision so as to limit its scope to cases where both actions
are brought against the same defendant. There was consensus that the square brackets should
be removed and such amendments made (see Art. 5(1)(i) of the February 2017 draft
Convention.

31. The Special Commission considered a proposal to refer to risk to health in Article 5(1)(j)
(i.e., to expand the provision to categories of cases where the tort did not result in physical
harm). Although there was a significant level of support for an extension along those lines,
there was no consensus that such words should be added to the provision.

32. Article 5(1)(o) of the 2016 preliminary draft Convention was discussed and there was
consensus that it should be deleted. Some delegations suggested that further consideration
may be necessary of the scenario where a judgment that has been enforced under the
Convention is subsequently set aside.

33. Following the convening of an informal working group in relation to Article 5(1)(n) of the
February 2017 draft Convention on trusts:

a proposal was made to add into sub-paragraphs (i) and (iii) a reference to the
designation applying at the time the proceedings were instituted. There was consensus
that those amendments should be made;

in relation to the final paragraph of the provision, a proposal was made to clarify that
this provision only applies to judgments regarding internal aspects of a trust between
people who are or were within the trust relationship. There was consensus that such
amendments should be made to Article 5(1)(n).

34. A proposal was made to include the words unless the defendants activities in relation to
the trust clearly did not constitute a purposeful and substantial connection to that State at the
end of Article 5(1)(n)(ii) of the February 2017 draft Convention. There was no consensus that
those words should be included in the text, but the Special Commission decided to proceed on
the basis that they should be added in square brackets, at this stage.

Consumer and employment matters

35. The Special Commission considered a proposal to delete Article 5(2)(a) regarding the
requirement for the defendant to expressly consent to the jurisdiction of the court of origin in
the course of proceedings in which the judgment was given. There was no consensus that this
provision should be deleted.

36. There was consensus that the reference to consent before the court should be replaced
with a reference to consent addressed to the court, orally or in writing. It was confirmed that
the reference to writing should include electronic equivalents, and that the Drafting Committee
should consider including a definition of the term writing in Article 3.

Exclusive bases for recognition and enforcement

37. The possibility of expanding Article 6(b) to include judgments ruling on rights in
personam in regard to activities relating to immovable property was discussed. There was no
consensus that Article 6 should be expanded in this way.
 6

38. Concern was expressed about what types of judgment would be categorised as in rem,
noting the potential for different answers under different systems of law. There was no
consensus that a change should be made to Article 6 at this stage. However, the Special
Commission noted the need to bear those concerns in mind as the draft progresses.

Grounds for refusal

39. The Special Commission discussed limiting Article 7(1)(b) to fraud in connection with a
matter of procedure, as under Article 9(d) of the Choice of Court Convention. There was no
consensus that such an amendment should be made.

40. With the benefit of the helpful note prepared by the co-Rapporteurs and the Permanent
Bureau on Article 7(1)(c), 7 the Special Commission discussed a number of proposals in relation
to that provision. There was no consensus on any amendment to the provision, and the Special
Commission decided to proceed on the basis that the words and situations involving
infringements of security or sovereignty of that State should remain in square brackets,
reflecting the need for further consideration of this issue. There was consensus that it would be
helpful for the Explanatory Report to explain the scope of this provision and provide examples
of public policy grounds for declining recognition and enforcement, drawing on the note.

41. There was consensus that it was desirable to clarify that the references to agreements
and designation in a trust instrument in Article 7(1)(d) should be read disjunctively. The
provision was amended accordingly.

Preliminary questions

42. The Special Commission discussed extending the provision on preliminary questions to
refer to all matters to which the Convention does not apply, rather than to the matters expressly
excluded from scope under Article 2. There was consensus that this is desirable (see Art. 8(1)
and (2) and Art. 2(2) of the February 2017 draft Convention).

Damages

43. The Special Commission considered a proposal to make amendments to Article 9 of the
2016 preliminary draft Convention. The Chair emphasised the delicate balance represented by
this Article, and the lengthy discussions which preceded its inclusion in the Choice of Court
Convention. No amendment was made to the provision (see Art. 11 of the February 2017 draft
Convention).

Remedies other than damages

44. The Special Commission discussed a proposal to delete Article 14 of the June 2016
preliminary draft Convention on equivalent effects, and replace it with a reframed provision in
relation to remedies other than damages. There was no consensus that such an amendment
should be made at this stage (see Art. 9 of the February 2017 draft Convention).

Judicial settlements (transactions judiciaires)

45. The Special Commission discussed a proposal to delete the words provided that such
settlement is permissible under the law of the requested State. There was no consensus that
this text should be deleted, and the Special Commission decided to proceed on the basis that it
should remain in square brackets. The Special Commission asked the co-Rapporteurs to explain
in the Explanatory Report that a settlement reached out of court (including a settlement reached
before proceedings are commenced) and subsequently approved by the court would come
within this Article. The Special Commission noted that in light of the commentary in
paragraphs 206 and 207 of the Explanatory Report on the Choice of Court Convention 8 it would

7
Note on Article 7(1)(c) of the 2016 preliminary draft Convention, Prel. Doc. No 5, December 2016 available
on the Secure Portal of the HCCH website under Special Commission Meetings, Special Commission on the
Judgments Project.
8
T. Hartley and M. Dogauchi, Explanatory Report on the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention, in
Proceedings of the Twentieth Session (2005), Tome III, Choice of Court, Antwerp-Oxford-Portland,
Intersentia, 2010.
 7

be helpful to clarify the Special Commissions understanding of the position to avoid any
confusion.

Costs of proceedings

46. The Special Commission considered various proposals in relation to Article 13 of the 2016
preliminary draft Convention on costs of proceedings including removing the square brackets,
deleting the provision entirely and adding a second paragraph based on Article 15 of the Hague
Convention of 25 October 1980 on International Access to Justice. There was no consensus for
either retention or deletion of this Article, and the Special Commission decided to proceed on
the basis that the provision, including the proposed second paragraph, should be included in
the draft text in square brackets (see Art. 16 of the February 2017 draft Convention).

Chapter III General clauses

Transitional provision

47. The Special Commission discussed the five variants of transitional provisions in the
Permanent Bureaus paper on Draft General and Final Clauses. 9 At this stage, the consensus
was confined to the inclusion of a provision requiring the Convention to be in force in both
States at the time the proceedings in the State of origin were initiated (variant E of the
Permanent Bureaus paper) (see Art. 18 of the February 2017 draft Convention).

No legalisation

48. The possibility of not including a provision along the lines of Article 18 of the Choice of
Court Convention was discussed. The Special Commission decided to proceed on the basis that
Article 19 of the February 2017 draft Convention should be included in the text in square
brackets.

Declarations

49. The Special Commission discussed proposals in relation to:

a declaration mechanism with respect to specific matters, modelled on Article 21 of the

Choice of Court Convention. There was consensus that such a provision should be
included in the text (see Art. 21 of the February 2017 draft Convention);

a declaration mechanism limiting recognition and enforcement where the parties were
resident in the requested State, and the relationship of the parties and all other elements
relevant to the dispute, other than the location of the chosen court, were connected only
with the requested State, based on Article 20 of the Choice of Court Convention. There
was consensus that such a provision should be included in the text (see Art. 20 of the
February 2017 draft Convention);

a declaration mechanism in relation to judgments arising out of proceedings to which a

government, governmental agency or any person acting for a State was a party. There
was some support for a provision along these lines, but there was no consensus that
the proposed provision should be included in the text, at this stage. Some delegations
suggested that these concerns could be addressed through a reservation, rather than a
declaration mechanism;

a declaration mechanism in relation to a specific article, such as Article 13 of the

February 2017 draft Convention. There was no consensus that such a declaration
mechanism should be added at this stage;

a declaration mechanism permitting courts to refuse recognition or enforcement of

judgments ruling on matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State
addressed. There was no consensus that such a provision should be added at this stage.

9
See Work. Doc. No 78, op. cit. note 3.
 8

Uniform interpretation

50. There was consensus that a provision modelled on Article 23 of the Choice of Court
Convention should be included in the text (see Art. 23 of the February 2017 draft Convention).

Review of operation of the Convention

51. The Special Commission discussed the desirability of a provision modelled on Article 24
of the Choice of Court Convention, and proposals to modify the provision in certain respects.
There was broad support for inclusion of a provision providing for reviews, but there was no
consensus for departing from the model in Article 24 of the Choice of Court Convention at this
stage (see Art. 24 of the February 2017 draft Convention).

Non-unified legal systems

52. The Special Commission discussed the inclusion of a provision in relation to non-unified
legal systems modelled on Article 25 of the Choice of Court Convention. The Special Commission
proceeded on the basis that such a provision should be included in the text (see Art. 25 of the
February 2017 draft Convention).

Relationship with other international instruments

53. The inclusion of a provision modelled on Article 26 of the Choice of Court Convention was
discussed. The Special Commission considered that a provision along these lines should be
included in the draft text. There was discussion about whether all the elements of Article 26 of
the Choice of Court Convention were needed, in light of a proposal to delete a number of
paragraphs. There was consensus to omit the text paralleling Article 26(2) of the Choice of
Court Convention, but there was no consensus that other limbs should be omitted. There was
also consensus on a proposal to depart from Article 26(6) of the Choice of Court Convention
model by omitting sub-paragraph (a).

54. The Special Commission noted the need to give further consideration to Article 26(3) of
the February 2017 draft Convention, and in particular the relationship between that provision
and Articles 6 and 17 of the February 2017 draft Convention. The Special Commission also
noted the need to give further consideration to the relationship with other international
conventions which may require recognition and enforcement to a lesser extent than is provided
for in the future Convention.

55. Consideration was also given to whether this provision should refer to written agreements
and understandings as well as treaties. There was no consensus that such an addition should
be made to this provision. The possibility of addressing this issue by means of a declaration
mechanism was also discussed, but there was no consensus that such a provision should be
included in the draft text.

Chapter IV - Final clauses

Signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession

56. There was consensus that a provision based on Article 27 of the Choice of Court
Convention should be included in the draft text (see Art. 27 of the February 2017 draft
Convention).

Declaration to confirm treaty relations or to object to them

57. Proposals were considered for the inclusion of a declaration provision based on an
objection or confirmation mechanism as outlined in the Permanent Bureaus paper on Draft
General and Final Clauses. 10 Such a provision, which has no equivalent in the Choice of Court
Convention, would introduce a form of bilateralisation in the future instrument.

10
See Work. Doc. No 78, op. cit. note 3.
 9

58. There was some support for such a provision, but there was no consensus that any of
those options should be included in the draft text at this stage.

Declarations with respect to non-unified legal systems

59. There was consensus that a provision based on Article 28 of the Choice of Court
Convention should be included in the draft text (see Art. 28 of the February 2017 draft
Convention).

Regional Economic Integration Organisations

60. There was consensus that a provision based on Article 29 of the Choice of Court
Convention should be included in the draft text (see Art. 29 of the February 2017 draft
Convention).

Accession by a Regional Economic Integration Organisation without its Member States

61. There was consensus that a provision based on Article 30 of the Choice of Court
Convention should be included in the draft text (see Art. 30 of the February 2017 draft
Convention).

Entry into force

62. The Special Commission decided to proceed on the basis that a provision modelled on
Article 31 of the Choice of Court Convention should be included in the draft text (see Art. 31 of
the February 2017 draft Convention). The possibility of a longer period of time for entry into
force than three months was discussed. There was consensus that two alternative timeframes
(three and six months) should be included in Article 31 in square brackets at this stage.

Reservations

63. The Special Commission discussed the desirability of including a provision on reservations
in the draft text, including a discussion of all the variants in the Permanent Bureaus paper on
Draft General and Final Clauses. The Special Commission noted that there was no article on
reservations in the Choice of Court Convention, and there was no strong support for any of the
express provisions concerning reservations set out in the Permanent Bureaus paper. No such
provision was included in the text at this stage.

Declarations

64. The Special Commission discussed including a provision modelled on Article 32 of the
Choice of Court Convention. There was consensus that such a provision should be included in
the draft text (see Art. 32 of the February 2017 draft Convention). The Special Commission
considered that alternative periods for such a declaration to come into force of three and six
months should be included in the text in square brackets, as the appropriate length of this
period would depend on other aspects of the final text.

Denunciation

65. The Special Commission discussed including a provision modelled on Article 33 of the
Choice of Court Convention. There was consensus that such a provision should be included in
the draft text (see Art. 33 of the February 2017 draft Convention). The question of providing
for the time at which the denunciation has effect was discussed. There was considerable support
in the room for addressing that issue, but the Special Commission noted that further work is
needed on how such a provision might be framed. 11

11
In the absence of any provision addressing this issue, Art. 70 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the
Treaties will apply.
 10

Notifications by the depositary

66. There was consensus that a provision based on Article 34 of the Choice of Court
Convention should be included in the draft text (see Art. 34 of the February 2017 draft
Convention).

Next steps

67. The Special Commission will propose to the March 2017 meeting of the Council that it
reconvene from 13 to 17 November 2017 to continue its work on the future Convention, with a
view to recommending to the Council that a Diplomatic Conference be convened towards the
end of 2018 or early 2019.

68. The Special Commission noted that it would be helpful for a draft of the Explanatory
Report to be available as soon as practicable after the next meeting of the Special Commission.
The Special Commission noted with gratitude that the co-Rapporteurs expect to be in a position
to provide a preliminary draft of the Explanatory Report before the next meeting of the Special
Commission.
ANNEXES
Special Commission on the Recognition
and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
(16-24 February 2017)

WORK. DOC. No 170 E

REVISED

Distribution: 24 February 2017

FEBRUARY 2017 DRAFT CONVENTION

as of 24 February 2017
ANNEX I ii

CHAPTER I SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS

Article 1
Scope

1. This Convention shall apply to the recognition and enforcement of judgments relating to
civil or commercial matters. It shall not extend in particular to revenue, customs or
administrative matters.

2. This Convention shall apply to the recognition and enforcement in one Contracting State
of a judgment given by a court of another Contracting State.

Article 2
Exclusions from scope

1. This Convention shall not apply to the following matters

(a) the status and legal capacity of natural persons;

(b) maintenance obligations;
(c) other family law matters, including matrimonial property regimes and other rights or
obligations arising out of marriage or similar relationships;
(d) wills and succession;
(e) insolvency, composition, resolution of financial institutions, and analogous matters;
(f) the carriage of passengers and goods;
(g) marine pollution, limitation of liability for maritime claims, general average, and
emergency towage and salvage;
(h) liability for nuclear damage;
(i) the validity, nullity, or dissolution of legal persons or associations of natural or legal
persons, and the validity of decisions of their organs;
(j) the validity of entries in public registers;
(k) defamation [and privacy];
[(l) intellectual property rights[, except for copyright and related rights and registered and
unregistered trademarks]].

2. A judgment is not excluded from the scope of this Convention where a matter to which
this Convention does not apply arose merely as a preliminary question in the proceedings in
which the judgment was given, and not as an object of the proceedings. In particular, the mere
fact that such a matter arose by way of defence does not exclude a judgment from the
Convention, if that matter was not an object of the proceedings.

3. This Convention shall not apply to arbitration and related proceedings.

4. A judgment is not excluded from the scope of this Convention by the mere fact that a
State, including a government, a governmental agency or any person acting for a State, was a
party to the proceedings.

5. Nothing in this Convention shall affect privileges and immunities of States or of

international organisations, in respect of themselves and of their property.
ANNEX I iii

Article 3
Definitions

1. In this Convention

(a) defendant means a person against whom the claim or counterclaim was brought in the
State of origin;
(b) judgment means any decision on the merits given by a court, whatever that decision
may be called, including a decree or order, and a determination of costs or expenses by
the court (including an officer of the court), provided that the determination relates to a
decision on the merits which may be recognised or enforced under this Convention. An
interim measure of protection is not a judgment.
2. An entity or person other than a natural person shall be considered to be habitually
resident in the State

(a) where it has its statutory seat;

(b) under whose law it was incorporated or formed;
(c) where it has its central administration; or
(d) where it has its principal place of business.

CHAPTER II RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT

Article 4
General provisions

1. A judgment given by a court of a Contracting State (State of origin) shall be recognised

and enforced in another Contracting State (requested State) in accordance with the provisions
of this Chapter. Recognition or enforcement may be refused only on the grounds specified in
this Convention.

2. Without prejudice to such review as is necessary for the application of the provisions of
this Chapter, there shall be no review of the merits of the judgment given by the court of origin.

3. A judgment shall be recognised only if it has effect in the State of origin, and shall be
enforced only if it is enforceable in the State of origin.

4. If a judgment referred to in paragraph 3 is the subject of review in the State of origin or

if the time limit for seeking ordinary review has not expired, the court addressed may

(a) grant recognition or enforcement, which enforcement may be made subject to the
provision of such security as it shall determine;
(b) postpone the decision on recognition or enforcement; or
(c) refuse recognition or enforcement.

A refusal under sub-paragraph (c) does not prevent a subsequent application for recognition or
enforcement of the judgment.

Article 5
Bases for recognition and enforcement

1. A judgment is eligible for recognition and enforcement if one of the following requirements
is met

(a) the person against whom recognition or enforcement is sought was habitually resident in
the State of origin at the time that person became a party to the proceedings in the court
of origin;
ANNEX I iv

(b) the natural person against whom recognition or enforcement is sought had his or her
principal place of business in the State of origin at the time that person became a party
to the proceedings in the court of origin and the claim on which the judgment is based
arose out of the activities of that business;
(c) the person against whom recognition or enforcement is sought is the person that brought
the claim, other than a counterclaim, on which the judgment is based;
(d) the defendant maintained a branch, agency, or other establishment without separate legal
personality in the State of origin at the time that person became a party to the
proceedings in the court of origin, and the claim on which the judgment is based arose
out of the activities of that branch, agency, or establishment;
(e) the defendant expressly consented to the jurisdiction of the court of origin in the course
of the proceedings in which the judgment was given;
(f) the defendant argued on the merits before the court of origin without contesting
jurisdiction within the timeframe provided in the law of the State of origin, unless it is
evident that an objection to jurisdiction or to the exercise of jurisdiction would not have
succeeded under that law;
(g) the judgment ruled on a contractual obligation and it was given in the State in which
performance of that obligation took place, or should have taken place, in accordance with
(i) the parties agreement, or
(ii) the law applicable to the contract, in the absence of an agreed place of performance,
unless the defendant's activities in relation to the transaction clearly did not constitute a
purposeful and substantial connection to that State;
(h) the judgment ruled on a tenancy of immovable property and it was given in the State in
which the property is situated;
(i) the judgment ruled against the defendant on a contractual obligation secured by a right
in rem in immovable property located in the State of origin, if the contractual claim was
brought together with a claim against the same defendant relating to that right in rem;
(j) the judgment ruled on a non-contractual obligation arising from death, physical injury,
damage to or loss of tangible property, and the act or omission directly causing such harm
occurred in the State of origin, irrespective of where that harm occurred;
[(k) the judgment ruled on an infringement of a patent, trademark, industrial design, plant
breeders right, or similar right required to be granted or registered and it was given by
a court in the State of origin in which the grant or registration of the right concerned has
taken place, or is deemed to have taken place under the terms of an international or
regional instrument[, unless the defendant has not acted in that State to initiate or further
the infringement, or their activity cannot reasonably be seen as having been targeted at
that State];]
[(l) the judgment ruled on the ownership or subsistence of copyright or related rights, [or
use-based trademarks, trade names, or unregistered designs] [or other intellectual
property rights not required to be registered] and the right is governed by the law of the
State of origin;]
[(m) the judgment ruled on an infringement of copyright or related rights, [or use-based
trademarks, trade names, or unregistered designs] [or other intellectual property rights
not required to be registered] and the right is governed by the law of the State of origin,
[unless the defendant has not acted in that State to initiate or further the infringement,
or their activity cannot reasonably be seen as having been targeted at that State];]
(n) the judgment concerns the validity, construction, effects, administration or variation of a
trust created voluntarily and evidenced in writing, and
(i) at the time the proceedings were instituted, the State of origin was designated in
the trust instrument as a State in which disputes about such matters are to be
determined;
ANNEX I v

(ii) the law of the State of origin is expressly or impliedly designated in the trust
instrument as the law governing the aspect of the trust that is the subject of the
litigation that gave rise to the judgment[, unless the defendants activities in
relation to the trust clearly did not constitute a purposeful and substantial
connection to that State]; or
(iii) at the time the proceedings were instituted, the State of origin was expressly or
impliedly designated in the trust instrument as the State in which the principal place
of administration of the trust is situated.

This sub-paragraph only applies to judgments regarding internal aspects of a trust

between persons who are or were within the trust relationship;

(o) the judgment ruled on a counterclaim

(i) to the extent that it was in favour of the counterclaimant, provided that the
counterclaim arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as the claim;
(ii) to the extent that it was against the counterclaimant, unless the law of the State of
origin required the counterclaim to be filed in order to avoid preclusion;
(p) the judgment was given by a court designated in an agreement concluded or documented
in writing or by any other means of communication which renders information accessible
so as to be usable for subsequent reference, other than an exclusive choice of court
agreement.
For the purposes of this sub-paragraph, an exclusive choice of court agreement means
an agreement concluded by two or more parties that designates, for the purpose of
deciding disputes which have arisen or may arise in connection with a particular legal
relationship, the courts of one State or one or more specific courts of one State to the
exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts.

2. If recognition or enforcement is sought against a natural person acting primarily for

personal, family or household purposes (a consumer) in matters relating to a consumer
contract, or against an employee in matters relating to the employees contract of
employment

(a) paragraph 1(e) applies only if the consent was addressed to the court, orally or in writing;
(b) paragraph 1(f), (g) and (p) do not apply.

Article 6
Exclusive bases for recognition and enforcement

Notwithstanding Article 5

[(a) a judgment that ruled on the registration or validity of a patent, trademark, industrial
design, plant breeders right, or similar right required to be granted or registered shall be
recognised and enforced if and only if the State of origin is the State in which grant or
registration has been applied for, has taken place, or is deemed to have been applied for
or to have taken place under the terms of an international or regional instrument;]
(b) a judgment that ruled on rights in rem in immovable property shall be recognised and
enforced if and only if the property is situated in the State of origin;
(c) a judgment that ruled on a tenancy of immovable property for a period of more than six
months shall not be recognised and enforced if the property is not situated in the State
of origin and the courts of the Contracting State in which it is situated have exclusive
jurisdiction under the law of that State.
ANNEX I vi

Article 7
Refusal of recognition or enforcement

1. Recognition or enforcement may be refused if

(a) the document which instituted the proceedings or an equivalent document, including a
statement of the essential elements of the claim
(i) was not notified to the defendant in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable
him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant entered an appearance and
presented his case without contesting notification in the court of origin, provided
that the law of the State of origin permitted notification to be contested; or
(ii) was notified to the defendant in the requested State in a manner that is
incompatible with fundamental principles of the requested State concerning service
of documents;
(b) the judgment was obtained by fraud;
(c) recognition or enforcement would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the
requested State, including situations where the specific proceedings leading to the
judgment were incompatible with fundamental principles of procedural fairness of that
State [and situations involving infringements of security or sovereignty of that State];
(d) the proceedings in the court of origin were contrary to an agreement, or a designation in
a trust instrument, under which the dispute in question was to be determined in a court
other than the court of origin;
(e) the judgment is inconsistent with a judgment given in the requested State in a dispute
between the same parties; or
(f) the judgment is inconsistent with an earlier judgment given in another State between the
same parties on the same subject matter, provided that the earlier judgment fulfills the
conditions necessary for its recognition in the requested State;

[(g) the judgment ruled on an infringement of an intellectual property right, applying to that
right a law other than the law governing that right.]

2. Recognition or enforcement may be postponed or refused if proceedings between the

same parties on the same subject matter are pending before a court of the requested State,
where

(a) the court of the requested State was seised before the court of origin; and
(b) there is a close connection between the dispute and the requested State.

A refusal under this paragraph does not prevent a subsequent application for recognition or
enforcement of the judgment.

Article 8
Preliminary questions

1. Where a matter to which this Convention does not apply, or a matter referred to in
Article 6 on which a court other than the court referred to in that Article ruled arose as a
preliminary question, the ruling on that question shall not be recognised or enforced under this
Convention.

2. Recognition or enforcement of a judgment may be refused if, and to the extent that, the
judgment was based on a ruling on a matter to which this Convention does not apply, or on a
matter referred to in Article 6 on which a court other than the court referred to in that Article
ruled.
ANNEX I vii

3. However, in the case of a ruling on the validity of a right referred to in Article 6,

paragraph (a), recognition or enforcement of a judgment may be postponed, or refused under
the preceding paragraph, only where

(a) that ruling is inconsistent with a judgment or a decision of a competent authority on that
matter given in the State referred to in Article 6, paragraph (a); or
(b) proceedings concerning the validity of that right are pending in that State.

A refusal under sub-paragraph (b) does not prevent a subsequent application for recognition or
enforcement of the judgment.

Article 9
Equivalent effects

A judgment recognised or enforceable under this Convention shall be given the same effect it
has in the State of origin. If the judgment provides for relief that is not available under the law
of the requested State, that relief shall, to the extent possible, be adapted to relief with effects
equivalent to, but not going beyond, its effects under the law of the State of origin.

Article 10
Severability

Recognition or enforcement of a severable part of a judgment shall be granted where

recognition or enforcement of that part is applied for, or only part of the judgment is capable
of being recognised or enforced under this Convention.

Article 11
Damages

1. Recognition or enforcement of a judgment may be refused if, and to the extent that, the
judgment awards damages, including exemplary or punitive damages, that do not compensate
a party for actual loss or harm suffered.

2. The court addressed shall take into account whether and to what extent the damages
awarded by the court of origin serve to cover costs and expenses relating to the proceedings.

[Article 12
Non-monetary remedies in intellectual property matters

A judgment granting a remedy other than monetary damages in intellectual property matters
shall not be enforced under this Convention.]

Article 13
Judicial settlements (transactions judiciaires)

Judicial settlements (transactions judiciaires) which a court of a Contracting State has approved,
or which have been concluded in the course of proceedings before a court of a Contracting
State, and which are enforceable in the same manner as a judgment in the State of origin, shall
be enforced under this Convention in the same manner as a judgment[, provided that such
settlement is permissible under the law of the requested State].
ANNEX I viii

Article 14
Documents to be produced

1. The party seeking recognition or applying for enforcement shall produce

(a) a complete and certified copy of the judgment;

(b) if the judgment was given by default, the original or a certified copy of a document
establishing that the document which instituted the proceedings or an equivalent
document was notified to the defaulting party;
(c) any documents necessary to establish that the judgment has effect or, where applicable,
is enforceable in the State of origin;
(d) in the case referred to in Article 13, a certificate of a court of the State of origin that the
judicial settlement or a part of it is enforceable in the same manner as a judgment in the
State of origin.

2. If the terms of the judgment do not permit the court addressed to verify whether the
conditions of this Chapter have been complied with, that court may require any necessary
documents.

3. An application for recognition or enforcement may be accompanied by a document

relating to the judgment, issued by a court (including an officer of the court) of the State of
origin, in the form recommended and published by the Hague Conference on Private
International Law.

4. If the documents referred to in this Article are not in an official language of the requested
State, they shall be accompanied by a certified translation into an official language, unless the
law of the requested State provides otherwise.

Article 15
Procedure

1. The procedure for recognition, declaration of enforceability or registration for

enforcement, and the enforcement of the judgment, are governed by the law of the requested
State unless this Convention provides otherwise. The court addressed shall act expeditiously.

2. The court of the requested State shall not refuse the recognition or enforcement of a
judgment under this Convention on the ground that recognition or enforcement should be
sought in another State.

[Article 16
Costs of proceedings

1. No security, bond or deposit, however described, shall be required from a party who in
one Contracting State applies for enforcement of a judgment given in another Contracting State
on the sole ground that such party is a foreign national or is not domiciled or resident in the
State in which enforcement is sought.

2. An order for payment of costs and expenses of proceedings, made in a Contracting State
against any person exempt from requirements as to security, bond, or deposit by virtue of
paragraph 1 shall, on the application of the person entitled to the benefit of the order, be
rendered enforceable in any other Contracting State.]

Article 17
Recognition or enforcement under national law

Subject to Article 6, this Convention does not prevent the recognition or enforcement of
judgments under national law.
ANNEX I ix

CHAPTER III GENERAL CLAUSES

Article 18
Transitional provision

This Convention shall apply to the recognition and enforcement of judgments if, at the time the
proceedings were instituted in the State of origin, the Convention was in force in that State and
in the requested State.

[Article 19
No legalisation

All documents forwarded or delivered under this Convention shall be exempt from legalisation or
any analogous formality, including an Apostille.]

Article 20
Declarations limiting recognition and enforcement

A State may declare that its courts may refuse to recognise or enforce a judgment given by a
court of another Contracting State if the parties were resident in the requested State, and the
relationship of the parties and all other elements relevant to the dispute, other than the location
of the court of origin, were connected only with the requested State.

Article 21
Declarations with respect to specific matters

1. Where a State has a strong interest in not applying this Convention to a specific matter,
that State may declare that it will not apply the Convention to that matter. The State making
such a declaration shall ensure that the declaration is no broader than necessary and that the
specific matter excluded is clearly and precisely defined.

2. With regard to that matter, the Convention shall not apply

(a) in the Contracting State that made the declaration;

(b) in other Contracting States, where recognition or enforcement of a judgment given in a
Contracting State that made the declaration is sought.

[Article 22
Declarations with respect to common courts

1. A Contracting State may declare that

(a) a court common to two or more States exercises jurisdiction over matters that come
within the scope of this Convention; and

(b) such a court

(i) has only an appellate function; or

(ii) has first instance and appellate functions.

2. Judgments of a Contracting State include

(a) judgments given by a court referred to in paragraph 1(b)(i);

(b) judgments given by a court referred to in paragraph 1(b)(ii) if all States referred to in
paragraph 1(a) are parties to this Convention.

3. If a court referred to in paragraph 1(b)(i) serves as a common court for States some of
which are Contracting States and some of which are non-Contracting States to this Convention,
judgments given by such a court shall only be considered as judgments of a Contracting State
if the proceedings at first instance were instituted in a Contracting State.
ANNEX I x

4. In case of a judgment given by a court referred to in paragraph 1(b)(ii) the reference to

the State of origin in Articles 5 and 6 shall be deemed to refer to the entire territory over which
that court had jurisdiction in relation to that judgment.]

Article 23
Uniform interpretation

In the interpretation of this Convention, regard shall be had to its international character and
to the need to promote uniformity in its application.

Article 24
Review of operation of the Convention

The Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law shall at regular
intervals make arrangements for

(a) review of the operation of this Convention, including any declarations; and
(b) consideration of whether any amendments to this Convention are desirable.

Article 25
Non-unified legal systems

1. In relation to a Contracting State in which two or more systems of law apply in different
territorial units with regard to any matter dealt with in this Convention

(a) any reference to the law or procedure of a State shall be construed as referring, where
appropriate, to the law or procedure in force in the relevant territorial unit;
(b) any reference to habitual residence in a State shall be construed as referring, where
appropriate, to habitual residence in the relevant territorial unit;
(c) any reference to the court or courts of a State shall be construed as referring, where
appropriate, to the court or courts in the relevant territorial unit;
(d) any reference to a connection with a State shall be construed as referring, where
appropriate, to a connection with the relevant territorial unit.

2. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a Contracting State with two or more territorial
units in which different systems of law apply shall not be bound to apply this Convention to
situations which involve solely such different territorial units.

3. A court in a territorial unit of a Contracting State with two or more territorial units in
which different systems of law apply shall not be bound to recognise or enforce a judgment
from another Contracting State solely because the judgment has been recognised or enforced
in another territorial unit of the same Contracting State under this Convention.

4. This Article shall not apply to a Regional Economic Integration Organisation.

Article 26
Relationship with other international instruments

1. This Convention shall be interpreted so far as possible to be compatible with other treaties
in force for Contracting States, whether concluded before or after this Convention.
ANNEX I xi

2. This Convention shall not affect the application by a Contracting State of a treaty that
was concluded before this Convention entered into force for that Contracting State, if applying
this Convention would be inconsistent with the obligations of that Contracting State to any non-
Contracting State. This paragraph shall also apply to treaties that revise or replace a treaty
concluded before this Convention entered into force for that Contracting State, except to the
extent that the revision or replacement creates new inconsistencies with this Convention.

3. This Convention shall not affect the application by a Contracting State of a treaty, whether
concluded before or after this Convention, for the purposes of obtaining recognition or
enforcement of a judgment given by a court of a Contracting State that is also a Party to that
treaty. However, the judgment shall not be recognised or enforced to a lesser extent than under
this Convention.

4. This Convention shall not affect the application by a Contracting State of a treaty which,
in relation to a specific matter, governs the recognition or enforcement of judgments, even if
concluded after this Convention and even if all States concerned are Parties to this Convention.
This paragraph shall apply only if the Contracting State has made a declaration in respect of
the treaty under this paragraph. In the case of such a declaration and to the extent that any
inconsistencies exist between the above-mentioned treaty and this Convention, other
Contracting States shall not be obliged to apply this Convention to a judgment which relates to
that specific matter and which was rendered by a court of a Contracting State that made the
declaration.

5. This Convention shall not affect the application of the rules of a Regional Economic
Integration Organisation that is a Party to this Convention, whether adopted before or after this
Convention as concerns the recognition or enforcement of judgments as between Member
States of the Regional Economic Integration Organisation.

CHAPTER IV FINAL CLAUSES

Article 27
Signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession

1. This Convention is open for signature by all States.

2. This Convention is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by the signatory States.

3. This Convention is open for accession by all States.

4. Instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, depositary of the Convention.

Article 28
Declarations with respect to non-unified legal systems

1. If a State has two or more territorial units in which different systems of law apply in
relation to matters dealt with in this Convention, it may at the time of signature, ratification,
acceptance, approval or accession declare that the Convention shall extend to all its territorial
units or only to one or more of them and may modify this declaration by submitting another
declaration at any time.

2. A declaration shall be notified to the depositary and shall state expressly the territorial
units to which the Convention applies.

3. If a State makes no declaration under this Article, the Convention shall extend to all
territorial units of that State.
ANNEX I xii

4. This Article shall not apply to a Regional Economic Integration Organisation.

Article 29
Regional Economic Integration Organisations

1. A Regional Economic Integration Organisation which is constituted solely by sovereign

States and has competence over some or all of the matters governed by this Convention may
similarly sign, accept, approve or accede to this Convention. The Regional Economic Integration
Organisation shall in that case have the rights and obligations of a Contracting State, to the
extent that the Organisation has competence over matters governed by this Convention.

2. The Regional Economic Integration Organisation shall, at the time of signature,

acceptance, approval or accession, notify the depositary in writing of the matters governed by
this Convention in respect of which competence has been transferred to that Organisation by
its Member States. The Organisation shall promptly notify the depositary in writing of any
changes to its competence as specified in the most recent notice given under this paragraph.

3. For the purposes of the entry into force of this Convention, any instrument deposited by
a Regional Economic Integration Organisation shall not be counted unless the Regional
Economic Integration Organisation declares in accordance with Article 30, paragraph 1, that its
Member States will not be Parties to this Convention.

4. Any reference to a "Contracting State" or "State" in this Convention shall apply equally,
where appropriate, to a Regional Economic Integration Organisation that is a Party to it.

Article 30
Accession by a Regional Economic Integration Organisation without its Member States

1. At the time of signature, acceptance, approval or accession, a Regional Economic

Integration Organisation may declare that it exercises competence over all the matters
governed by this Convention and that its Member States will not be Parties to this Convention
but shall be bound by virtue of the signature, acceptance, approval or accession of the
Organisation.

2. In the event that a declaration is made by a Regional Economic Integration Organisation

in accordance with paragraph 1, any reference to a Contracting State or State in this
Convention shall apply equally, where appropriate, to the Member States of the Organisation.

Article 31
Entry into force

1. This Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration
of [three] [six] months after the deposit of the second instrument of ratification, acceptance,
approval or accession referred to in Article 27.

2. Thereafter this Convention shall enter into force

(a) for each State or Regional Economic Integration Organisation subsequently ratifying,
accepting, approving or acceding to it, on the first day of the month following the
expiration of [three][six] months after the deposit of its instrument of ratification,
acceptance, approval or accession;
(b) for a territorial unit to which this Convention has been extended in accordance with
Article 28 on the first day of the month following the expiration of [three] [six] months after
the notification of the declaration referred to in that Article.
ANNEX I xiii

Article 32
Declarations

1. Declarations referred to in Articles 20, 21, 26(4), 28 and 30 may be made upon signature,
ratification, acceptance, approval or accession or at any time thereafter, and may be modified
or withdrawn at any time.

2. Declarations, modifications and withdrawals shall be notified to the depositary.

3. A declaration made at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or

accession shall take effect simultaneously with the entry into force of this Convention for the
State concerned.

4. A declaration made at a subsequent time, and any modification or withdrawal of a

declaration, shall take effect on the first day of the month following the expiration of [three]
[six] months following the date on which the notification is received by the depositary.

5. A declaration made at a subsequent time, and any modification or withdrawal of a

declaration, shall not apply to judgments resulting from proceedings that have already been
instituted before the court of origin when the declaration takes effect.

Article 33
Denunciation

1. This Convention may be denounced by notification in writing to the depositary. The

denunciation may be limited to certain territorial units of a non-unified legal system to which
this Convention applies.

2. The denunciation shall take effect on the first day of the month following the expiration
of twelve months after the date on which the notification is received by the depositary. Where
a longer period for the denunciation to take effect is specified in the notification, the
denunciation shall take effect upon the expiration of such longer period after the date on which
the notification is received by the depositary.

Article 34
Notifications by the depositary

The depositary shall notify the Members of the Hague Conference on Private International Law,
and other States and Regional Economic Integration Organisations which have signed, ratified,
accepted, approved or acceded in accordance with Articles [] of the following

(a) the signatures, ratifications, acceptances, approvals and accessions referred to in

Article 27;
(b) the date on which this Convention enters into force in accordance with Article 31;
(c) the notifications, declarations, modifications and withdrawals of declarations referred to
in Article 32; and
(d) the denunciations referred to in Article 33.