international service

If you need to depose a witness located in the United Kingdom on behalf of one of your American clients, there are several things you should know. Below is a basic primer on the process, what to expect, and what pitfalls to avoid.
Subpoena or Agreement of Testimony
Lawyers who are wanting to depose a witness and/or obtain production of documents from a witness or entity in England and Wales by either:
● Having a voluntary agreement; or
● Compulsion under a subpoena order;
Notably, a voluntary deposition can be on the terms that the parties agreed to including what law and procedure apply. If the parties are unable to come to an agreement, then a court-ordered deposition must adhere to the applicable rules of English law and practice.
Submission of Letter of Request
If the parties are unable to come to an agreement, then the party seeking to depose the foreign witness must petition the American court to issue a letter of request to the UK High Court for the deposition of a witness under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (“TEACC”). A letter of request should have details of the claim and identify the possible witnesses, details of evidence sought, as well as any documents the witness is required to produce. These letters must be drafted with care, ensuring compliance with English law and rules, so that they are not rejected.
Application to High Court
Once the letter of request has been issued and sent to a UK Court, an English lawyer must then petition the High Court in London for an order to effectuate the letter and appoint an examiner responsible for the supervision of the deposition. An examiner is a neutral, approved by the High Court, who performs a quasi-judicial role in the matter. While a foreign lawyer or consular may be an examiner, an English lawyer is typically preferred. Any of the examiner’s fees and expenses are paid by the party seeking to take the deposition.
A court order will include the specific documents that must be requested and may include the questions sought to be asked of the witness. The application to the High Court may be made with or without notice to the other party and the potential witness. If made without notice, the party
and/or witness has the opportunity to object and apply to dismiss all or part of the High Court’s order.
International Litigation Support

If you need to serve a lawsuit on a foreign defendant, or simply need international litigation support to include deposing a witness in the UK, contact Ancillary Legal today. Our team has significant experience and can support all your domestic and international litigation needs.

How to Serve Someone in Mexico

It happens more often than you would think that a plaintiff needs to sue a defendant who does not live in the United States. No matter what type of case you may be pursuing, a series of issues may arise regarding providing the soon-to-be defendant notice of any pending lawsuit in the United States. Thankfully, several methods are not only allowed by law but tried and true when it comes to successfully serving legal papers to someone who lives in Mexico. Below is a simple primer on how to serve someone in Mexico.

The Hague Service Convention

A majority of the world’s nations—including the United States and Mexico—are parties to The Hague Service Convention (the “Convention”). The purpose of the Convention is to streamline the method by which a person living abroad is served legal paperwork. The Convention further contemplates a set method of service of process so that hundreds of different nations are not implementing different ways to allow service to be effectuated upon someone living in their country, further complicating international litigation matters.

What Needs to be Done?

While Mexico has a Central Authority, which accepts and forwards a foreign country’s legal documents for service of process, it is not sufficient to simply send documents to the agency.

The first thing that you need to do in order to serve someone in Mexico is to have the documents translated into Spanish. Even if the intended recipient speaks and reads English, the documents must still be translated.

Second, you must complete a Hague Service request form. In addition to outlining your name, address, contact information, and the address of Mexico’s Central Authority, you must list the documents that are being served.

Finally, be sure to make several copies of all documents for your records prior to sending them out to Mexico’s Central Authority. Moreover, be ready to wait as it can take more than six months to receive proof of service from the Mexican authorities. While there are other methods of service that are allowed under international law, Mexico has rejected all of them.

Be Sure to Plan Ahead

Planning is critical when it comes to serving notice of a lawsuit to someone who lives abroad, including in Mexico. It is best for your attorney to notify the American court early that service on a person living in Mexico is necessary so that the U.S. court does not place the case on a “fast track” toward an early trial and even earlier pretrial deadlines. This will help you avoid requesting multiple continuances for circumstances that are completely out of your control.

International Litigation Support

If you need to serve a lawsuit on a foreign defendant, or simply need international litigation support to include deposing a witness in Mexico, contact Ancillary Legal today. Our team has significant experience and can support all your domestic and international litigation needs.


The supreme court of Brazil, known as the Supreme Federal Court (STF), recently ratified the ruling of an American court regarding a legal dispute between an American and Brazilian company.


The Case

The matter at issue involves a decision by a New York court that ordered copyright distributor Latin Stock Brazil Produces to pay $362,740 USD to American company Shutterstock, which provides videos, images, and music. In order for the judgment to be enforceable in Brazil, however, the country’s judiciary had to ratify the New York Court’s decision.

Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice (STJ) accepted use of service of process by process of mail — a landmark ruling — the method by which was previously agreed to by the litigants in a clause in the contract between the parties. The parties further agreed in their contract that in the event of litigation, the matter would be resolved by a New York court where service of process can be perfected by mail. The STJ ratified the New York Court’s ruling as the agreement and acknowledgment receipt of mail was attached to the lawsuit.


The Ruling


The STF recently confirmed that a foreign court’s decision could be ratified without requiring a Brazilian company to be served with process in the legal dispute by letter rogatory. A letter rogatory is a formal request from a court to a foreign court for judicial assistant — typically asking the foreign court permission before performing a judicial act without which the foreign court’s sanction would result in a violation of that country’s sovereignty. The STF upheld a ruling of a lower Brazilian court, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), that released an American company from the obligation of serving the Brazilian company through letters rogatory. According to an article published by Mondaq, between January 2015 and September 2020 the STJ granted nearly 90% of requests to ratify a foreign ruling. The STF held that the STJ’s judgment granting Shutterstock’s request was well-founded and also supported by the infra-constitutional law. Public policy also supported the decision as it provided greater legal certainty to foreign investors who wish to execute agreements with Brazilian companies — business relationships that can attract foreign capital to the country.


The Effects

After the STF endorsement of service of process by mail, numerous foreign companies now have the option of possibly establishing another method of process of service aside from letters rogatory, making international service both faster and cheaper. It is expected that companies with international agreements will include a similar clause in their contracts.


For service in Brazil, visit our site.

France’s highest court, the Court of Cassation (CoC), ruled earlier this month to resolve procedural issues in favor of six not-for-profit groups in their lawsuit against oil giant Total Uganda.


In 2019, six French and Ugandan nonprofit civil society organizations (CSOs) brought a lawsuit against Total Uganda. According to an article published by, he CSOs included:

  • Friends of the Earth France,
  • Survie;
  • National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE); and
  • Navigators of Development Organization (NAVODA).


The Case

The CSOs argued that Total Uganda’s oil projects in Tanzania and Uganda violated France’s new duty of vigilance law, which required the oil giant to prevent human rights violations and environmental harm. The law holds France-based parent companies of transnational corporations responsible for the effect of their actions globally.

The plaintiffs and defendants have been fighting over procedural issues for two years. The plaintiff-CSOs claim their case should have been heard by a civil court, while defendant Total Uganda argued that the case should be evaluated in a commercial court. In January 2020, a Nanterre civil court held that jurisdiction over the legal dispute fell under commercial courts. In October of the same year the decision was affirmed by the Versailles Court of Appeal. In response to that decision, the CSOs appealed to the CoC. The CoC recognized in its recent decision that the CSOs have a right to choose litigation in a civil or a commercial court because they are non-commercial plaintiffs. As a result of the CoC’s decision, the plaintiffs’ case will be heard on the merits in Nanterre’s civil court.


The Takeaway


The Total Uganda case is the first of its kind based on France’s law on the duty of vigilance of transnational companies. Unlike commercial courts that draw their legitimacy from knowledge of the business world, lawsuits that are brought under France’s duty of vigilance law address the protection of the planet as well as human rights. As a result, the legal dispute cannot be turned into a purely commercial matter. The decision by the CoC falls in line with a recently adopted law by the French Parliament, which is expected to be enacted into procedural law soon, that gives Paris civil courts jurisdiction over all cases that are based on France’s duty of vigilance law.

For service of process in France, visit our site. 

For more information on the Total Uganda case, visit here. For more information on France’s duty of vigilance law, visit here.


On May 8, 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt (“HRCF”) in Germany held that although a translation of the statement of claim is not required under the law, a plaintiff is responsible for doing so if he or she opts for a translation under Regulation (EC) No. 1393/2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (the “Regulation”). If the process of service of the statement of claim (“statement”) is delayed for lack of translation, the plaintiff bears the legal risk under applicable German law that the time limitations on filing a suit are not tolled because the statement was served months after the filing.


The Case


The lawsuit was filed by a plaintiff-insolvency administrator against a defendant that was domiciled in France. According to applicable law, the deadline to file a claim expired on December 31, 2015. Plaintiff initiated the claim on December 15, 2015 at Darmstadt Regional Court (“DRC”) without a translation of the statement of the claim. Instead, the plaintiff asked the DRC to obtain a translation and paid the fee in advance to the court. DRC had difficulty finding a translator and, as a result, only received the translated statement of claim in October of 2016. The translated statement of claim was served on the defendant in December of 2016. Not surprisingly, the defendant alleged the statute of limitations had passed.


Court Decisions


The DRC ruled in plaintiff’s favor, allowing the case to proceed, and cited Section 167 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (“ZPO”). UnderSection 167, the deadline to serve a statement of claim is suspended with its filing if it is served “in the near future” and the party seeking service did not cause the delay. The DRC found that the delay in the service of the statement of claim was not due to the plaintiff but, rather, the court’s slow handling of the translation. Defendant appealed.


The HRCF reversed the DRC’s decision and dismissed the lawsuit, determining it was statute-barred. The HRCF held that the plaintiff did not do all that was reasonably required to ensure service was effectuated “in the near future” under Section 167 of the ZPO. The court did not address the question of whether service of a statement of claim a year after its filing could be construed as “in the near future.” The HRCF held that under Article 5(1) of the Regulation, the plaintiff is not required to provide a translation of the statement of claim for the defendant. That being said, Article 8(1) of the Regulation allows a defendant to refuse service if he or she does not understand the content of the document or it is written in another language than that of the receiving member state. If a defendant refuses to accept, then the document must be served with a translation. Notably, the relevant service date for tolling a statute of limitation under Article 8(3) of the Regulation is the initial service attempt.


For more information on the case, visit Baker McKenzie’s Global Litigation News.

For international service of process; visit Ancillary Legal.

Is formal service of process required when serving foreign defendants located in countries that are signatories to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents (Hague Convention)? The short answer is “yes.”


According to the Hague Convention, foreign defendants located in signatory countries must be served according to the international treaty’s rules. There are also specific requirements that are mandated by the Hague Convention. These include mandates that must be complied with such as serving a complete certified translation of the process and service via a signatory nation’s central authority.


It is important for employers that are located in nations that are signatories to the Hague Convention that they are properly served. Service through a United States subsidiary is improper and not in compliance with the Hague Convention. Oftentimes this type of attempted service of process is quashed, and the court in which the lawsuit sits will not have jurisdiction over the foreign defendant until proper service of process is effectuated.


Substitute Service Through U.S. Subsidiaries


There are some limited situations in which a foreign corporation may be properly served in America through a wholly-owned U.S.-based subsidiary. In such a situation, the plaintiff must establish that the parent corporation exercised such a degree of control over the subsidiary that its activities were in fact those of the parent-corporation located within the United States. Notably, this is a high burden to meet for the plaintiff; the mere fact that the party that was served in America is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the defendant in the lawsuit is insufficient on its own. In order for this substitute service to be proper, facts must support the claim that the U.S.-based subsidiary controlled the defendant entity.  Examples that could meet this high burden of proof would include:


  • The subsidiary’s and parent corporation’s financial statements are consolidated into one;
  • The parent corporation owned 100% of the subsidiary’s stock and voted at all stockholders’ meetings;
  • The subsidiary’s and parent corporation’s board of directors, officers, and employees held offices in both companies.


Without a sufficient showing of control by the parent corporation over the subsidiary, such as the examples listed above, any substituted service could be quashed.


We Can Help With Your Service of Process Needs


Service of process is critical. Proper service is necessary to assert jurisdiction over a foreign defendant. The challenges to service of process, however, can be waived by a plaintiff if not timely raised. For this reason, the prompt analysis of whether service on a foreign defendant was effectuated and proper, and whether the Hague Convention applies, is critical. Contact Ancillary Legal today to serve your international service of process needs.


Investigation Exposes Weaknesses in Vatican City’s Judicial System


A recent criminal investigation into a Vatican City real estate investment has revealed weaknesses in the Holy See’s judicial system, including a lack of protections for those accused. The result, it seems, is that the judicial system and procedures are incompatible with European norms.


Understanding Vatican City


Never a democracy, the Vatican instead has been a moral authority on a global scale and at the same time a monarch. The pope has the ultimate power — being the supreme legislator, executive, and judge — who can make laws and regulations (and waive them) as well as hire and fire officials, prosecutors, and judges. Marc Odendall, a former long-time papal advisor recently gave up his consulting roles in protest of the grave issues he saw coming out of the real estate probe because something had to be done.


The Investigation


The probe was into a 350 million-euro London real estate investment. The investigation came to light in October, 2019 when the pope’s security officials raided the offices of the central government of the Holy See — the Vatican secretariat of state. These body guards also raided the AIF, the Vatican’s financial watchdog authority. Notably, Pope Francis had personally authorized the raids in response to information that a trusted ally had alerted the Vatican’s prosecutors of questionable circumstances surrounding the investment. The Pope defended the raids on the AIF despite steep criticism.


While the investigation portrayed Pope Francis as a leader who was cracking down on corruption, there is evidence of financial mismanagement by Vatican officials, including agreeing to pay tens of millions of euros in fees to Italian middlemen. Suspects of the investigation claim Pope Francis was aware of the payment, even that he purportedly personally approved it, and that top Vatican leaders authorized the transaction.


Vatican Law


The case itself is highlighting the limitations embedded in Vatican law, which is based on Italian code from 1889. Not only is this code no longer in use in modern-day times, but compared to modern legal systems, it also diminishes the rights of defendants during an investigative phase of a case. One example of this is Pope Francis authorizing the Holy See’s prosecutors to us a “summary rite” during the investigation. This allows them to deviate from typical procedures and grants them discretion to interrogate and perform searches and seizures without any oversight from an investigating judge.


Complexity of International Law


The real estate investment investigation at Vatican City highlights how complicated international law can become. If you are pursuing a lawsuit against an international defendant, the last thing you want to be concerned with is proper service of process. The team at Ancillary Legal can handle all of your processing needs so you can focus on the substantive aspect of your case. Contact us today.

In our last post, we explained that the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial & Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague Service Convention”) is a multilateral treaty adopted on November 15, 1965 by member nations of the Hague Convention on Private International Law (the “Convention”). This Hague Service Convention created unified rules on several issues, including international service of process and has been ratified by 74 countries.


The Convention provides a streamlined way to effectuate international service of process through  each signatory nation’s Central Authority of each signatory nation. Until recently, it has been unclear as to whether service by mail is allowed and many plaintiff’s choose this method because it is faster than the methods provided under the Hague and other methods for non-signatory nations.

Unclear Position From Japan


The Japanese government did not object to service of process by mail at any point since signing the Hague Convention in 1970 until 2018. That being said, litigation with Japanese defendants did not clarify the issue until the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issued a decision in Water Splash. In that case, a U.S. company sued a former employee in Texas state court. At the time of the lawsuit, the defendant was residing in Canada and was served by public mail, private mail, and email. The Texas state court entered a default judgment against the defendant for failure to respond. The former employee filed suit arguing lack of proper service and the parties argued whether the Hague Service convention allowed service of process by mail. The SCOTUS used the second interpretation of Article 10(a) and allowed service by mail.


Because the position of the Japanese government was not clear and courts could interpret that under the Hague service of process by mail is prohibited irrespective of whether a signatory objected to this method, using service by mail for Japanese defendants was a risk. Accordingly, many careful plaintiffs used service through the Japanese Central Authority (JCA) under the Hague Service Convention. Until the SCOTUS decision in Water Splash, the Japanese government had halted direct service of process by mail.


Bottom Line


After the SCOTUS decision in Walter Splash, it was more likely that service of process made directly to defendants located in Japan by mail would be permitted. Japan’s declaration, however, has annulled this alternative method of service. As a result, in contemplating future lawsuits against Japanese defendants, the parties to a deal may enter into negotiations where service under the Hague Service Convention is avoided by a potential plaintiff and in exchange the Japanese-stationed party can get favorable concessions in exchange for voluntarily accepting service of process. Indeed, an American party may request a Japanese counterpart to designate a United States agent for service of process in the event of a lawsuit in contract negotiations. Of course, the Japanese party should analyze the implications of agreeing to this.


More on this topic can be found here.

For info on service in Japan please go here. 

When it comes to international litigation, things can get complicated. Not only are you dealing with international laws and foreign sovereigns, but the rules and regulations governing international service of process also differs vastly from rules applicable to domestic cases. The Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial & Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague Service Convention”) is a multilateral treaty. This treaty was adopted on November 15, 1965 by member nations of the Hague Convention on Private International Law (the “Convention”). This treaty created unified rules on several issues, including international service of process. Approximately 74 countries have ratified the Convention.


The Convention Explained


The Convention provides a streamlined way to effectuate service of process through the Central Authority of each signatory nation. Under Article II, each nation designates its Central Authority to receive documents for and effectuate service on its domestic subjects. When countries have no agreements or treaties like the Hague Service Convention, a common method for service of process is through diplomatic channels. Because this method usually involves agencies, like the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, of both countries to transmit the documents, it takes much longer.


Efforts of International Service


In order to have a more predictable time frame of effectuated service and reduce costs for serving through the Central Authority, many parties who bring international lawsuits against a foreign defendant try to do so via service by mail. In such a scenario, the plaintiff directly sends legal documents to the defendant by express delivery (such as DHL, UPS, or FedEx) or mail service.


Article 10(a) of the Convention states that it would not interfere with direct service by mail provided the state of destination does not object. Historically, there were two interpretations of Article 10(a):


  • The sending of judicial documents does not include service of process, and the only method of service allowed by the Convention is through the Central Authority. Whether or not the destination sovereign has objected, service by mail is prohibited; or
  • The sending of judicial documents does include service of process, and if the destination sovereign has not objected, service by mail is allowed. If the destination sovereign has objected, then it is prohibited.


As can be seen, international service of process can be complicated. More details on this case can be found in our second part of this series.


More on this topic can be found here.

Perhaps one of the less common tasks that an attorney needs to oversee, international service of process can be more complicated than serving a defendant domestically. For this reason, attorneys need to know what this involves and how to ensure international service of process is effectuated properly. Many issues can arise when serving a defendant internationally, including extended timelines, increased costs, and nuanced rules. Handling international service of process properly can be the difference between a successful case and one that is lost on a technicality. Below is some information all lawyers should know when filing suit against foreign defendants.


What is the Difference Between Domestic and International Service of Process?


When someone or an entity is served within the United States, service of process is done in compliance with state and federal rules of civil procedure. When it comes to international service, on the other hand, service must comply with the receiving country’s rules and laws regarding service of process. Generally, there are three ways to serve a defendant internationally:


  • The Hague Service Convention: In an effort to simplify how to serve a defendant in a foreign country, the Hague Service Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents (“Hague Service Convention”) was created. Under this international treaty, countries who agree to this method of international service — referred to as “signatories” — can pick and choose which articles they agree to for service. Under the Hague Service Convention, a central authority was created in each sovereign when it comes to international service requests through a streamlined process. Once everything is received, each country handles the rest of service internally.
  • Letters Rogatory: If a country chooses not to be a signatory to the Hague Service Convention, then the next option for formal international service of process is Letters Rogatory. This process is much more expensive and longer than the method allowed through the Hague Service Convention. This is because there is a lack of uniformity. Moreover, Letters Rogatory require that the service go through a formal request process. These requests are processed through diplomatic channels that ask the receiving country to complete the service. Consequently, the timeline and result is significantly dependent upon the political relationship between the two countries involved in service; and
  • Service via agent: If the plaintiff is not seeking to have a judgment enforced by a foreign government, then the informal method of service of service via agent is a viable option for international service of process. Service in this manner is principally intended for notification purposes instead of for the purpose of the receiving country’s court system enforcing a judgment on a defendant. Instead, the foreign courts expect service to be completed in the particular manner prescribed by the receiving country.


We Can Help You


It is critical for all attorneys to follow the proper procedures and translation mandates when serving a lawsuit internationally. If you need to serve a document internationally, contact Ancillary Legal today.

Courts in China, specifically in Hong Kong, have demonstrated its legal system’s continuing embrace of technology.

The city’s Court of First Instance — the highest court in Hong Kong that can hear a case at first instance with unlimited jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters — granted the plaintiff’s application for service of process through access to a data room. This is the first time, according to reports, that this novel method of service of process has been used in Hong Kong. The decision is a clear showing of the Chinese courts’ efforts to incorporate the use of technology in courtroom proceedings.

The Case

The underlying case had to do with misappropriations of funds. The act occurred through numerous bank accounts and the suit included 28 defendants. None of the defendants actively participated in the legal proceedings. The court granted service out of jurisdiction for 16 of the overseas defendants. Notably, certain court documents require personal service while others may use the method of ordinary service (by mail or leaving at the proper physical address). The Hong Kong court granted the plaintiff’s proposal to serve documents by access to a data room because of the numerous defendants and potential joinder of future defendants to the legal proceedings.

Permitted Service

The lower court in Hwang Joon gave the following directions to the serving party for service by access to a data room:

  • Creating an online data room containing all the relevant documents;
  • Providing a link to the data room to all intended recipients through a method previously approved by the court;
  • Providing an access code to the data room, as well as instructions on how to access the room in a separate email or post mail to the recipient(s).

An English court had previously allowed service by access to a data room in CMOC Sales & Marketing Ltd v Persons Unknown and 30 others [2018] EWHC 2230 (Comm). The COMC case involved email scams as well as fraudulent transfers of monies.

Bottom Line

It is true that in recent years courts both in the United States and around the world have become more amenable to the use of technology in legal proceedings as well as service of process methods. The Hwang Joon court stressed, however, that the approach to technology use in service of process is not a “one size fits all.” Specifically, the court noted that the party seeking the method of service of process will need to establish that the chosen method is good and service will still be properly effectuated. While the Hwang Joon decisions are welcomed, these decisions remain the exception and not the rule of permitted methods of service of process.

The case is Hwang Joon Sang & another v Golden Electronics Inc. and Ors [2020] HKCFI 1084.

For more information, check out Service in Hong Kong.

Letters rogatory are the customary means of obtaining judicial assistance from overseas in the absence of a treaty or other agreement.  Letters rogatory are requests from courts in one country to the courts of another country requesting the performance of an act which, if done without the sanction of the foreign court, could constitute a violation of that country’s sovereignty. Letters rogatory may be used to effect service of process or to obtain evidence if permitted by the laws of the foreign country.

Execution of letters rogatory is expensive and can take over a year.  Ancillary can serve international process through letters rogatory when applicable, but if your judgment does not need to be enforced in the foreign country, there may be more cost-effective alternatives.  Submit a request for a free quote today or call us at (855) 233-3206 to speak with one of our international representatives about your case.

Before initiating the letters rogatory process, parties should determine whether the country where they are seeking to serve process or take evidence is a party to any multilateral treaties on judicial assistance.

The full list of countries we serve in is listed below.

International Process Service Countries

Process Service in Afghanistan

Process Service in Albania

Process Service in American Samoa (U.S.)

Process Service in Angola

Process Service in Antigua and Barbuda

Process Service in Argentina

Process Service in Aruba

Process Service in Austria

Process Service in Azores (Portugal)

Process Service in Bahrain

Process Service in Bangladesh

Process Service in Barbuda (UK)

Process Service in Belgium

Process Service in Benin

Process Service in Bhutan

Process Service in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Process Service in Brazil

Process Service in Brunei

Process Service in Burkina Faso

Process Service in Burundi

Process Service in Cameroon

Process Service in Canary Islands (Spain)

Process Service in Cartier Islands (Australia)

Process Service in Central African Republic

Process Service in Chad

Process Service in China

Process Service in Cocos (Australia)

Process Service in Comoros

Process Service in Cook Islands

Process Service in Costa Rica

Process Service in Croatia

Process Service in Cyprus

Process Service in Denmark

Process Service in Dominica

Process Service in East Timor

Process Service in Ecuador

Process Service in El Salvador

Process Service in England (UK)

Process Service in Eritrea

Process Service in Ethiopia

Process Service in Faroe Islands (Denmark)

Process Service in Finland

Process Service in French Glorioso Islands (Seychelles)

Process Service in French Polynesia (France)

Process Service in Georgia

Process Service in Ghana

Process Service in Great Britain

Process Service in Greenland (Denmark)

Process Service in Guadeloupe (France)

Process Service in Guatemala

Process Service in Guinea

Process Service in Guyana

Process Service in Holy See

Process Service in Hong Kong (China)

Process Service in Iceland

Process Service in Indonesia

Process Service in Iran

Process Service in Ireland

Process Service in Israel

Process Service in Ivory Coast

Process Service in Japan

Process Service in Jordan

Process Service in Kenya

Process Service in Korea South

Process Service in Kuwait

Process Service in Laos

Process Service in Lebanon

Process Service in Liberia

Process Service in Liechtenstein

Process Service in Luxembourg

Process Service in Macedonia

Process Service in Madeira (Portugal)

Process Service in Malaysia

Process Service in Mali

Process Service in Marshall Islands

Process Service in Mauritania

Process Service in McDonald Islands (Australia)

Process Service in Micronesia

Process Service in Monaco

Process Service in Montenegro

Process Service in Mozambique

Process Service in Nagorno-Karabakh

Process Service in Nauru

Process Service in Netherland Antilles (Netherlands)

Process Service in Nevis

Process Service in New Zealand

Process Service in Niger

Process Service in Norfolk Islands (UK)

Process Service in Northern Ireland (UK)

Process Service in Norway

Process Service in Pakistan

Process Service in Palestinian National Authority

Process Service in Papua New Guinea

Process Service in Persia (Iran)

Process Service in Philippines

Process Service in Poland

Process Service in Puerto Rico (U.S.)

Process Service in Reunion (UK)

Process Service in Russia

Process Service in Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

Process Service in Saint Helena (UK)

Process Service in Saint Lucia

Process Service in Saipan (U.S.)

Process Service in San Marino

Process Service in Saudi Arabia

Process Service in Senegal

Process Service in Seychelles

Process Service in Singapore

Process Service in Slovenia

Process Service in Somalia

Process Service in South Georgia (UK)

Process Service in South Osettia

Process Service in Sri Lanka

Process Service in St Maarten (Netherlands)

Process Service in St Pierre and Miquelon (France)

Process Service in Suriname

Process Service in Sweden

Process Service in Syria

Process Service in Tajikistan

Process Service in Thailand

Process Service in Tibet (China)

Process Service in Tinian (U.S.)

Process Service in Tonga

Process Service in Trinidad and Tobago

Process Service in Tunisia

Process Service in Turkmenistan

Process Service in Tuvalu (formerly Ellice Islands)

Process Service in Ukraine

Process Service in United Kingdom

Process Service in Uruguay

Process Service in Vanuatu

Process Service in Venezuela

Process Service in Virgin Islands (U.S.)

Process Service in Wallis and Futuna (France)

Process Service in Zambia

Process Service in Akrotiri (UK)

Process Service in Algeria

Process Service in Andorra

Process Service in Anguilla (UK)

Process Service in Antilles

Process Service in Armenia

Process Service in Australia

Process Service in Azerbaijan

Process Service in Bahamas

Process Service in Balearic Islands (Spain)

Process Service in Barbados (UK)

Process Service in Belarus

Process Service in Belize

Process Service in Bermuda (UK)

Process Service in Bolivia

Process Service in Botswana

Process Service in British Virgin Islands (UK)

Process Service in Bulgaria

Process Service in Burma

Process Service in Cambodia

Process Service in Canada

Process Service in Cape Verde

Process Service in Cayman Islands (UK)

Process Service in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka)

Process Service in Chile

Process Service in Christmas Islands (Australia)

Process Service in Colombia

Process Service in Congo

Process Service in Coral Sea Islands (Australia)

Process Service in Cote d’Ivoire

Process Service in Cuba

Process Service in Czech Republic

Process Service in Djibouti

Process Service in Dominican Republic

Process Service in Ecuador

Process Service in Egypt

Process Service in Ellice Islands (now known as Tuvalu)

Process Service in Equatorial Guinea

Process Service in Estonia

Process Service in Falkland Islands (UK)

Process Service in Fiji

Process Service in France

Process Service in French Guiana (France)

Process Service in Gabon

Process Service in Germany

Process Service in Gibraltar (UK)

Process Service in Greece

Process Service in Grenada

Process Service in Guam (U.S.)

Process Service in Guernsey (UK)

Process Service in Guinea-Bissau

Process Service in Haiti

Process Service in Honduras

Process Service in Hungary

Process Service in India

Process Service in Inner Mongolia (China)

Process Service in Iraq

Process Service in Isle of Man (UK)

Process Service in Italy

Process Service in Jamaica

Process Service in Jersey (UK)

Process Service in Kazakhstan

Process Service in Kiribati

Process Service in Kosovo

Process Service in Kyrgyzstan

Process Service in Latvia

Process Service in Lesotho

Process Service in Libya

Process Service in Lithuania

Process Service in Macau (China)

Process Service in Madagascar

Process Service in Malawi

Process Service in Maldives

Process Service in Malta

Process Service in Martinique (France)

Process Service in Mauritius

Process Service in Mexico

Process Service in Moldova

Process Service in Mongolia

Process Service in Morocco

Process Service in Myanmar (Burma)

Process Service in Namibia

Process Service in Nepal

Process Service in Netherlands

Process Service in New Caledonia (France)

Process Service in Nicaragua

Process Service in Nigeria

Process Service in Northern Cyprus

Process Service in Northern Mariana Islands (U.S.)

Process Service in Oman

Process Service in Palau

Process Service in Panama

Process Service in Paraguay

Process Service in Peru

Process Service in Pitcairn Islands (UK)

Process Service in Portugal

Process Service in Qatar

Process Service in Romania

Process Service in Rwanda

Process Service in Saint Barthelemy (France)

Process Service in Saint Kitts (St Christopher, UK)

Process Service in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Process Service in Samoa

Process Service in Sao Tome

Process Service in Scotland

Process Service in Serbia

Process Service in Sierra Leone

Process Service in Slovakia

Process Service in Solomon Islands

Process Service in South Africa

Process Service in South Korea

Process Service in Spain

Process Service in St Kitts & Nevis (UK)

Process Service in St Martin (France)

Process Service in Sudan

Process Service in Swaziland

Process Service in Switzerland

Process Service in Taiwan

Process Service in Tanzania

Process Service in The Gambia

Process Service in Timor-Leste (East Timor)

Process Service in Togo

Process Service in Transnistria

Process Service in Tromelin Island

Process Service in Turkey

Process Service in Turks and Caicos Islands (UK)

Process Service in Uganda

Process Service in United Arab Emirates

Process Service in United States

Process Service in Uzbekistan

Process Service in Vatican City

Process Service in Vietnam

Process Service in Wales (UK)

Process Service in Yemen

Process Service in Zimbabwe