On 31 May 2021, Georgia deposited its instrument of accession to the Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters and on 30 July 2021, the Convetion came into force. This takes the total number of contracting parties to the Evidence Convention to 64.
At this year’s International Bar Association‘s virtual annual conference, I have the pleasure of moderating a session on managing international litigation, with this wonderful panel:
- Sam Hosseini of Stikeman Elliott in Toronto, providing the perspective of outside counsel,
- James Menz, Senior Litigation Counsel at Bombardier, sharing his insights from the corporate perspetive
- and last but not least Brody Warren of the Hague Conference on Private International Law’s Permanent Bureau in The Hague. Inter alia, Brody will shed light on the use of video technology under the Hague Evidence Convention.
Join us on Wednesday, 4 November 2020 at 12:00 AM GMT!
You read it here first, back in 2013, but at the time with a question mark, and then again in 2014 and 2015. Finally, 2017 is the year it is actually going to happen: Germany is about to change its approach to discovery of documents under the Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, commonly known as the Hague Evidence Convention. The bill that would remove Germany’s reservation pursuant to Article 23 of the Convention* has been introduced into Parliament. It passed the Upper Chamber (Bundesrat) late last year without any objections. Continue reading
The Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) has held that a court’s failure to avail itself of the tools of international judicial co-operation can amount to a violation of the party’s right to effective judicial protection (Recht auf effektiven Rechtsschutz).
The decision was made in a family law matter, where the existence and validity of an adoption in Romania was in dispute. In the proceedings before the Local Court (Amtsgericht) Frankfurt am Main, the aggrieved party had been unable to produce the underlying Romanian files, but had submitted communication from the respective Romanian authority, that a request from a German court to be granted access to the files would be entertained.
The local court, however, did not attempt to get hold of these files. Its failure to use “institutionalised facilities and measures of judicial assistance”, in particular those offered by the European Evidence Regulation and the European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters, in the circumstances of the case rendered its decision unconstitutional. Continue reading