Again about jurisdiction

The Plaintiff (wife) filed divorce action against The Defendant (husband), citizen of USA.

Upon submission of the divorce action, the Plaintiff, in violation of Articles 131, Part 2, Clause 3 of the Russian Civil Procedural Code, did not indicate the place of residence of the Defendant, which is the mandatory requisite for any civil action. Indication in the divorce action the registration address where the Defendant knowingly does not live and where it is impossible to send the notification is unacceptable and grossly violates not only the applicable Russian Civil Procedure legislation, but also the provisions of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters dated on November 15, 1965, according to which the documents with an appropriate translation into English shall be sent to the place of residence of the Defendant.

In accordance with Article 15 Part 4 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, “the international law regulations and international treaties of the Russian Federation are an integral part of its legal system. If an international treaty of the Russian Federation sets out rules other than those provided by law, then the rules of the international treaty shall be applied.” Therefore, the Plaintiff’s ignoring the requirements of the 1965 Convention is unacceptable.

Article 15 of the 1965 Convention requires that the summons or any equivalent document to be served abroad shall be actually delivered to the Defendant in person at his or her place of residence, and that the document shall be delivered in a timely manner so that the Defendant can prepare for the defense.

This regulation completely duplicates Article 113, Part 3 of the Russian Civil Procedural Code, which stipulates that judicial notices and summons should be served to the individuals involved in the case in such a way that they have sufficient time to prepare for the case and timely appearance in court.

Thus, by the day of the preliminary hearing, the Defendant did not receive any documents at his place of residence in the USA, and the documents submitted by the Plaintiff to the court did not contain a translation into English.

The Defendant’s attorney do not have relevant linguistic education for the proper translation of court documents in order to present them to the Defendant for him to learn the details on the merits of divorce action and to formulate arguments thereon. The law obliges the Plaintiff to submit to the court his or her divorce action with all the appendices translated into English, as well as send copies of these documents to the Defendant.