Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:05:57.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hague Conference on Private International Law: Special Commission Report on the Operation of the Hague Service Convention and the Hague Evidence Convention*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reports
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 28 , Issue 6 , November 1989 , pp. 1556 - 1569
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

[Reproduced from the text provided by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. The Hague Service Convention appears at 16 I.L.M. 1339 (1977); the Hague Evidence Convention appears at 8 I.L.M. 37 (1969). An earlier report on the operation of the Hague Service Convention appears at 17 I.L.M. 319 (1978); earlier reports on the operation of the Hague Evidence Convention appear at 17 I.L.M. 1425 (1978) and 24 I.L.M. 1668 (1985).

[A decision of the Court of Appeals of Munich and a decision of the Netherlands Supreme Court concerning the Hague Service Convention appear respectively at 28 I.L.M. 1570 (1989) and 28 I.L.M. 1584 (1989). A decision of the Netherlands Supreme Court concerning the Hague Evidence Convention appears at 28 I.L.M. 1577 (1989).]

References

* Note by the Permanent Bureau: It should be mentioned here that subsequently to the Special Commission, on 9 May 1989, the Oberlandesgericht of Munich rejected this theory and characterized punitive damages as civil in nature (decision published in part in RIW, 1989, Heft 6, p. 483). [see 28 I.L.M. 1570 (1989)]

* The Schlunk case appears at 27 I.L.M. 1092 (1988); the Mabanaft case at 28 I.L.M. 1584 (1989).]

* [The Brussels Convention appears at 8 I.L.M. 229 (1969); the Lugano Convention at 28 I.L.M. 620 (1989).]