Английская Википедия:Hague Evidence Convention

Содержание

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Шаблон:Short description Шаблон:Infobox Treaty The Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—more commonly referred to as the Hague Evidence Convention—is a multilateral treaty which was drafted under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCPIL). The treaty was negotiated in 1967 and 1968 and signed in The Hague on 18 March 1970. It entered into force in 1972. It allows transmission of letters of request (letters rogatory) from one signatory state (where the evidence is sought) to another signatory state (where the evidence is located) without recourse to consular and diplomatic channels. Inside the US, obtaining evidence under the Evidence Convention can be compared to comity.

The Hague Evidence Convention was not the first convention to address the transmission of evidence from one state to another. The 1905 Civil Procedure Convention—also signed in The Hague—contained provisions dealing with the transmission of evidence. However, that earlier convention did not command wide support and was only ratified by 22 countries.

Substantive provisions

Central authorities and procedures

The convention establishes a procedure whereby each contracting state designates a "central authority" to receive and review incoming "letters of request" for taking evidence in that country.

The central authority reviews the letter of request to determine that it complies with the requirements of the convention. If the letter of request does comply, the central authority then "transmits" the letter of request "to the authority competent to execute" it (article 2), which essentially means to a court.

Under Article 9, the judicial authority that executes a letter of request applies its own law as to the methods and procedures for executing the letter of request.

Under article 13, (a) the documents establishing the execution of the letter of request are to be sent by the requested authority (the recipient of the letter of request) to the requesting authority by the same channel that was used by the requesting authority, and (b) whenever the letter of request is not executed (in whole or in part), the requesting authority is to be informed immediately and advised of the reasons.

Pre-trial discovery

The convention also applies to pre-trial discovery: obtaining of evidence prior to trial without the prior approval of a judge. While this is a common practice in many common law countries, it was felt unacceptable by many others. Countries can however object to application to pre-trial discovery through an objection according to Article 23. As of April 2019, the convention applies to pre-trial discovery in 15 countries. 26 states have objected fully excluding pretrial discovery, while 17 others have restricted its applicability.

An example of a partial objection to pre-trial discovery is from Mexico, requiring the start of the judicial proceedings, identifiability of the documents and a clear relationship between the requested documents and the pending proceedings:

C) FORMULATION OF PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS

4. With reference to Article 23 of the Convention, the United Mexican States declares that according to Mexican law, it shall only be able to comply with letters of request issued for the purpose of obtaining the production and transcription of documents when the following requirements are met: (a) that the judicial proceeding has been commenced; (b) that the documents are reasonably identifiable as to date, subject and other relevant information and that the request specifies those facts and circumstances that lead the requesting party to reasonable believe that the requested documents are known to the person from whom they are requested or that they are in his possession or under his control or custody;

(c) that the direct relationship between the evidence or information sought and the pending proceeding be identified.

Parties

Countries that ratified
(cumulative by year)

<timeline> ImageSize = width:auto height:180 barincrement:15 PlotArea = left:50 bottom:15 top:10 right:18 AlignBars =justify DateFormat = yyyy Period = from:0 till:63 TimeAxis = orientation:vertical ScaleMajor = unit:year increment:10 start:0 PlotData= color:orange width:15 bar:72 from:start till:3 text:3 bar:73 from:start till:3 text:3 bar:74 from:start till:4 text:4 bar:75 from:start till:6 text:6 bar:76 from:start till:9 text:9 bar:77 from:start till:10 text:10 bar:78 from:start till:11 text:11 bar:79 from:start till:13 text:13 bar:80 from:start till:13 text:13 bar:81 from:start till:15 text:15 bar:82 from:start till:16 text:16 bar:83 from:start till:17 text:17 bar:84 from:start till:17 text:17 bar:85 from:start till:17 text:17 bar:86 from:start till:18 text:18 bar:87 from:start till:20 text:20 bar:88 from:start till:20 text:20 bar:89 from:start till:21 text:21 bar:90 from:start till:21 text:21 bar:91 from:start till:21 text:21 bar:92 from:start till:22 text:22 bar:93 from:start till:24 text:24 bar:94 from:start till:25 text:25 bar:95 from:start till:26 text:26 bar:96 from:start till:28 text:28 bar:97 from:start till:30 text:30 bar:98 from:start till:30 text:30 bar:99 from:start till:31 text:31 bar:00 from:start till:34 text:34 bar:01 from:start till:37 text:37 bar:02 from:start till:38 text:38 bar:03 from:start till:39 text:39 bar:04 from:start till:42 text:42 bar:05 from:start till:43 text:43 bar:06 from:start till:43 text:43 bar:07 from:start till:44 text:44 bar:08 from:start till:47 text:47 bar:09 from:start till:50 text:50 bar:10 from:start till:52 text:52 bar:11 from:start till:54 text:54 bar:12 from:start till:56 text:56 bar:13 from:start till:56 text:56 bar:14 from:start till:58 text:58 bar:15 from:start till:58 text:58 bar:16 from:start till:60 text:60 bar:17 from:start till:61 text:61 bar:18 from:start till:61 text:61 bar:19 from:start till:62 text:62 bar:20 from:start till:63 text:63 </timeline>

As of 2023, there are 66 states which are parties of the Hague Evidence Convention. 60 of the HCPIL member states are party to the Hague Evidence Convention. In addition, six states that are not members of the HCPIL (Barbados, Colombia, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Nicaragua and Seychelles) have joined the Hague Evidence Convention. Article 39 of the Hague Evidence Convention expressly permits states which were not members of the HCPIL at the time of the conclusion of the treaty to accede to the Convention. Шаблон:Col-begin

State	Date of Ratification	Comments
Шаблон:Flag	16 July 2010
Шаблон:Flag	26 April 2017
Шаблон:Flag	8 May 1987
Шаблон:Flag	27 June 2012
Шаблон:Flag	23 October 1992
Шаблон:Flag	5 March 1981
Шаблон:Flag	7 August 2001
Шаблон:Flag	16 June 2008
Шаблон:Flag	9 April 2014
Шаблон:Flag	23 November 1999
Шаблон:Flag, People's Republic of	8 December 1997	including the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macao
Шаблон:Flag	13 January 2012
Шаблон:Flag	16 March 2016
Шаблон:Flag	1 October 2009
Шаблон:Flag	13 January 1983
Шаблон:Flag	28 June 1993	succession of the ratification of Czechoslovakia in 1976
Шаблон:Flag	20 June 1972
Шаблон:Flag	19 January 2023
Шаблон:Flag	2 February 1996
Шаблон:Flag	7 April 1976
Шаблон:Flag	7 August 1974	Complete territory
Шаблон:Flag	31 May 2021
Шаблон:Flag	27 April 1979
Шаблон:Flag	18 January 2005
Шаблон:Flag	13 July 2004
Шаблон:Flag	10 November 2008
Шаблон:Flag	7 February 2007
Шаблон:Flag	19 July 1979
Шаблон:Flag	22 June 1982
Шаблон:Flag	26 September 2016
Шаблон:Flag	8 May 2002
Шаблон:Flag	28 March 1995
Шаблон:Flag	12 November 2008
Шаблон:Flag	2 August 2000
Шаблон:Flag	26 July 1977
Шаблон:Flag	13 March 2009
Шаблон:Flag	24 February 2011
Шаблон:Flag	16 January 2012

State	Date of Ratification	Comments
Шаблон:Flag	27 July 1989
Шаблон:Flag	24 March 2011
Шаблон:Flag	17 January 1986
Шаблон:Flag	16 January 2012
Шаблон:Flag	8 April 1981	European Netherlands and Aruba
Шаблон:Flag	27 February 2019
Шаблон:Flag	3 August 1972
Шаблон:Flag	23 June 2023
Шаблон:Flag	13 February 1996
Шаблон:Flag	12 March 1975
Шаблон:Flag	21 August 2003
Шаблон:Flag	1 May 2001
Шаблон:Flag	2 July 2010
Шаблон:Flag	7 January 2004
Шаблон:Flag	27 October 1978
Шаблон:Flag	15 March 1993	succession of the ratification of Czechoslovakia in 1976
Шаблон:Flag	18 November 2000
Шаблон:Flag	8 July 1997
Шаблон:Flag	14 December 2009
Шаблон:Flag	22 May 1987
Шаблон:Flag	30 October 2000
Шаблон:Flag	2 May 1975
Шаблон:Flag	2 November 1994
Шаблон:Flag	13 August 2004
Шаблон:Flag	1 February 2001
Шаблон:Flag	16 July 1976	Including Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Anguila, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey
Шаблон:Flag	8 August 1972	Including Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
Шаблон:Flag	1 November 1993
Шаблон:Flag	3 May 2020

Practical operation in member states

At least two member states authorize private lawyers to be involved in the evidence-gathering process. Under the law of the British Virgin Islands, if a witness is summoned to testify pursuant to a letter of request, a legal practitioner for any party may administer the oath to the witness.

The availability of a private lawyer to be directly involved is even more broad under Israeli law. As noted above, Israel has not issued an article 23 declaration. Israeli law provides, pursuant to the Legal Assistance Among States Law 1998, for the possibility of the appointment of a private lawyer to oversee the process of taking evidence under the convention. That statute also governs the procedure for evidence-gathering in Israel in aid of foreign criminal investigations. As a result, even in civil matters (including Hague Evidence Convention requests), the Israeli court system usually assigns letters of request to judges in the criminal division. Due to that allocation, most Israeli decisions issued in connection with international evidence-gathering are stamped "closed doors," which essentially means that it is unlawful to publish the decision.

The American Bar Association conducted a survey to receive feedback from American lawyers concerning their experience with the letter of request procedures under the Hague Evidence Convention. The ABA published the results of the survey in October 2003, and its Conclusions section begins as follows:

The Hague Evidence Convention has been remarkably successful in bridging differences between the common law and civil law approaches to obtaining evidence and has significantly streamlined the procedures for compulsion of evidence from abroad.

Obtaining evidence outside the convention

Insofar as requests to United States courts are concerned, parties may also use the simpler discovery provision codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (see Section 1782 Discovery).

Between states of the European Union, the convention has largely been supplanted by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1206/2001 on Cooperation Between the Courts of the Member States in the Taking of Evidence in Civil or Commercial Matters.

External links

• Hague Evidence Convention at the Hague Conference website
• Ratifications