Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-254_5iel.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

abroad that do not culminate in service.”  Ibid.  The final 
version of Article 1, however, “eliminates this possibility.” 
Ibid.  The wording of Article 1 makes clear that the Con­
vention “applies only when there is both transmission of a 
document from the requesting state to the receiving state,
and  service  upon  the  person  for  whom  it  is  intended.” 
Ibid. 

In  short,  the  text  of  the  Convention  reveals,  and  we 
have  explicitly  held,  that  the  scope  of  the  Convention  is
limited to service of documents.  In light of that, it would 
be quite strange if Article 10(a)—apparently alone among
the  Convention’s  provisions—concerned  something  other 
than service of documents. 

Indeed,  under  that  reading,  Article  10(a)  would  be  su­
perfluous.  The  function  of  Article  10  is  to  ensure  that, 
absent  objection  from  the  receiving  state,  the  Convention 
“shall not interfere” with the activities described in 10(a), 
10(b)  and  10(c).  But  Article  1  already  “eliminates  [the]
possibility”  that  the  Convention  would  apply  to  any  com­
munications that “do not culminate in service,” id., at 701, 
so it is hard to imagine how the Convention could interfere 
with  any  non-service  communications.    Accordingly,  in 
order  for  Article  10(a)  to  do  any  work,  it  must  pertain  to 
sending documents for the purposes of service.

Menon  attempts  to  avoid  this  superfluity  problem  by
suggesting  that  Article  10(a)  does  refer  to  serving  docu­
ments—but only some documents.  Specifically, she makes
a distinction between two categories of service.  According
to Menon, Article 10(a) does not apply to service of process
(which we have defined as “a formal delivery of documents 
that  is  legally  sufficient  to  charge  the  defendant  with 
notice of a pending action,” id., at 700)).  But Article 10(a) 
does apply, Menon suggests, to the service of “post-answer 
judicial  documents”  (that  is,  any  additional  documents
which may have to be served later in the litigation).  Brief 
for Respondent 30–31.  The problem with this argument is