ARE NOT TAKEN THE TIME REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 27 ( 2 ) DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN . QUESTION 2 ( C ) ASKS WHETHER THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAILURE OF THE DULY SERVED DOCUMENT TO REACH HIM PREVENTS THE COURT , WHERE , FOR EXAMPLE , THE PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD LEFT THE ADDRESS STATED TO BE HIS PLACE OF RESIDENCE , FROM CONSIDERING THAT FURTHER STEPS AS REFERRED TO IN QUESTION 2 ( B ) SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN .
24 WITH REGARD TO QUESTION 2 ( B ), THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS OBSERVE THAT NO SUCH OBLIGATION IS PROVIDED FOR IN THE APPLICABLE NATIONAL LAW OR IN THE CONVENTION ITSELF AND CONSIDER THAT A RULE OF THAT KIND WOULD IMPAIR LEGAL CERTAINTY IN THE FIELD OF PROCEDURAL LAW . IN ADDITION , THEY ARGUE THAT THERE IS NO UNIFORM PRACTICE IN THE LEGAL SYSTEMS OF THE CONTRACTING STATES , SOME OF WHICH ARE MORE FORMALISTIC THAN OTHERS AND THUS LESS INCLINED TO REQUIRE ANY STEPS TO BE TAKEN WHICH ARE NOT PRESCRIBED BY THE LAW OR THE CONVENTION . IN ANY EVENT , SAY THE PLAINTIFFS , ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE EXPECTED THAT A LAWYER MIGHT NOTIFY THE OPPOSITE PARTY OR REQUEST AN ADJOURNMENT IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS , A LAWYER CANNOT BE REPROACHED FOR FAILING TO DO SO .
25 THE COMMISSION ALSO CONSIDERS THAT SUCH AN OBLIGATION WOULD SERIOUSLY JEOPARDIZE LEGAL CERTAINTY . IN ITS VIEW , NO CONSEQUENCE UNDER PROCEDURAL LAW SHOULD FLOW FROM THE FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT NOTIFY THE DEFENDANT WHEN HE LEARNS AFTER SERVICE THAT THE DEFENDANT MAY BE CONTACTED AT ANOTHER ADDRESS .
26 THE DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS , THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND THE UNITED KINGDOM , ON THE OTHER HAND , PROPOSE AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER , STRESSING INTER ALIA THAT THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 27 ( 2 ) IS TO GUARANTEE NOT MERELY FORMAL SERVICE BUT THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD AND THUS THE OPPORTUNITY OF PRESENTING A DEFENCE . THEY THEREFORE CONSIDER THAT EVERY EFFORT MUST BE MADE TO PREVENT JUDGMENT FROM BEING GIVEN AGAINST A DEFENDANT WITHOUT HIS HAVING HAD AN OPPORTUNITY OF DEFENDING HIMSELF .
27 ON THAT POINT IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER SERVICE WAS EFFECTED IN SUFFICIENT TIME IS A QUESTION OF FACT AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE DOMESTIC LAW OF THE ADJUDICATING COURT OR ON THE BASIS OF THE DOMESTIC LAW OF THE COURT IN WHICH ENFORCEMENT IS SOUGHT . HOWEVER , THE CONVENTION DOES NOT IMPOSE ON THE PLAINTIFF ANY OBLIGATION TO TAKE STEPS SUCH AS THOSE REFERRED TO IN QUESTION 2 ( B ). THE FAILURE TO TAKE SUCH STEPS IS IN REALITY MERELY A FACTOR WHICH MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH WHETHER SERVICE WAS EFFECTED IN SUFFICIENT TIME .
28 SEEN IN THAT LIGHT , THE FACT THAT