Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-254_5iel.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

Cite as:  581 U. S. ____ (2017) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

vice  Convention  allows  for  service  by  mail.6   In  addition, 
several of the Convention’s signatories have either objected, 
or  declined  to  object,  to  service  by  mail  under  Article 
10,  thereby  acknowledging  that  Article  10  encompasses 
service  by  mail.7    Finally,  several  Special  Commissions—
comprising  numerous  contracting  States—have  expressly 
stated  that  the  Convention  does  not  prohibit  service  by
mail.8  By contrast, Menon identifies no evidence that any 

—————— 

6 See, e.g., Wang v. Lin, [2016] 132 O. R. 3d 48, 61 (Can. Ont. Sup. Ct. 
J.); Crystal Decisions (U. K.), Ltd. v. Vedatech Corp., EWHC (Ch) 1872
(2004), 2004 WL 1959749 ¶21 (High Court, Eng.); R. v. Re Recognition 
of an Italian Judgt., 2000 WL 33541696, ¶4 (D. F. Thes. 2000); Case C– 
412/97, ED Srl v. Italo Fenocchio, 1999 E. C. R. I–3845, 3877–3878, ¶6 
[2000] 3 C. M. L. R. 855; see also Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F. 3d 798, 802 
(CA9  2004)  (noting  that  foreign  courts  are  “essentially  unanimous”  in 
the view “that the meaning of ‘send’ in Article 10(a) includes ‘serve’ ”). 

7 Canada, for example, has stated that it “does not object to service by
postal channels.”  By contrast, the Czech Republic has adopted Czecho­
slovakia’s  position  that  “judicial  documents  may  not  be  served  . . . 
through postal channels.”  Dutch Govt. Treaty Database: Convention on 
the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or
Commercial  Matters:  Parties  With  Reservations,  Declarations 
and  Objections,  (entries  for  Canada  and  the  Czech  Republic)  on- 
line  at  https://treatydatabase.overheid.nl/en/Verdrag/Details/004235_b; 
see  also,  e.g.,  ibid.  (entries  for  Latvia,  Australia,  and  Slovenia).    In 
addition,  some  states  have  objected  to  all  of  the  channels  of  transmis­
sion  listed  in  Article  10,  referring  to  them  collectively  with  the  term
“service.”  See,  e.g.,  ibid.  (entries  for  Bulgaria,  Hungary,  Kuwait,  and 
Turkey). 

8 Hague  Conference  on  Private  International Law, Conclusions  and 
Recommendations Adopted by the Special Commission on the Practical
Operation  of  the  Hague  Apostille,  Evidence  and  Service  Conventions 
¶55,  p.  11  (Oct.  28–Nov.  4,  2003)  (“reaffirm[ing]”  the  Special  Commis­
sion’s “clear understanding that the term ‘send’ in Article 10(a) is to be
understood  as  meaning  ‘service’  through  postal  channels”),  online  at
https://assets.hcch.net/upload/wop/lse_concl_e.pdf;  Hague  Conference 
on  Private  International  Law,  Report  on  the  Work  of  the  Special
Commission  of  April  1989  on  the  Operation  of  the  Hague  Conventions
of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudi­
cial  Documents  in  Civil  or  Commercial  Matters  and  of  18  March  1970 
on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters ¶16,