Russia Judicial Assistance



Disclaimer: The information in this circular relating to the legal requirements of specific foreign countries is provided for general information only and may not be totally accurate in a particular case.  Questions involving interpretation of specific foreign laws should be addressed to foreign counsel.  This circular seeks only to provide information; it is not an opinion on any aspect of U.S., foreign, or international law.  The U.S. Department of State does not intend by the contents of this circular to take a position on any aspect of any pending litigation.

  • Summary
  • Criminal Matters
  • Defense Requests in Criminal Matters
  • Authentication of Documents
  • Enforcement of Judgments
  • Lists of Attorneys in Russia
  • U.S. Embassy Address and Contact Information
  • Links

Summary :  Judicial assistance between the United States and the Russian Federation is governed by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), 21 UST 77, TIAS 6820, 596 U.N.T.S. 261 and the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, 20 UST 361; to which the United States and the Russian Federation are parties.  The United States has not accepted the Russian Federation’s accession to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters because the Russian Federation does not have a working Central Authority under that Convention.

In July 2003, Russia unilaterally suspended all judicial cooperation with the United States in civil and commercial matters. The Russian Federation refuses to serve letters of request from the United States for service of process presented under the terms of the 1965 Hague Service Convention or to execute letters rogatory requesting service of process transmitted via the diplomatic channel.  The Russian Federation also declines to give consideration to U.S. requests to obtain evidence.  While the Department of State is prepared to transmit letters rogatory for service or evidence to Russian authorities via the diplomatic channel, in the Department’s experience, all such requests are returned unexecuted.  Likewise requests sent directly by litigants to the Russian Central Authority under the Hague Service Convention are returned unexecuted.

Russia's policy in these matters is assertedly based on objections to a fee, imposed by the United States on June 1, 2003, for all requests for service from any foreign country whether submitted under the Hague Service Convention or via the diplomatic channel.  This fee is designed to cover the costs incurred by a private contractor hired by the U.S. Department of Justice to administer the service functions of the U.S. Central Authority for the Hague Service Convention.  Such fees are permitted under the Hague Service Convention and routinely charged by many States party to the Convention. 

Between October 28 – November 4, 2003, a Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the Hague Service, Evidence and Legalization Conventions convened at The Hague.  The Special Commission’s Conclusions and Recommendations of November 4, 2003, page 10, paragraph 53, provide:

“The Special Commission reaffirmed that according to Article 12(1), a State party shall not charge for its services rendered under the Convention.  Nevertheless, under Article 12(2), an applicant shall pay or reimburse the costs occasioned by the employment of a judicial officer or other competent person.  The Special Commission urged States to ensure that any such costs reflect actual expenses and be kept at a reasonable level.” 

The Russian Federation did not support this recommendation and reserved its position. 

On December 3, 2004, the Russian Federation deposited a declaration with the Government of the Netherlands, the treaty depository, naming a Central Authority and taking a reservation regarding certain aspects of the treaty.  The declaration provides:

"The Russian Federation assumes that in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention the service of judicial documents coming from a Contracting State shall not give rise to any payment or reimbursement of taxes or costs for the services rendered by the State addressed.  Collection of such costs (with the exception of those provided for by subparagraphs a) and b) of the second paragraph of Article 12) by any Contracting State shall be viewed by the Russian Federation as refusal to uphold the Convention in relation to the Russian Federation, and, consequently, the Russian Federation shall not apply the Convention in relation to this Contracting State."

The Department of State and the Russian Foreign Ministry have exchanged several diplomatic notes setting out our respective positions on the matter, and met twice in Moscow to explore ways to provide normal judicial cooperation.  No future bilateral meetings on this subject are currently scheduled but the United States plans to attend the next Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the Hague Service, Evidence and Legalization Conventions, tentatively scheduled at the Hague in the Fall of 2008.

Because of the Russian suspension of executing U.S. judicial assistance requests in civil and commercial matters, we advise litigants that they may wish to seek guidance from legal counsel in the Russian Federation regarding alternative methods of service.  The United States has informed the Russian Federation on numerous occasions that in the absence of a direct channel for U.S. judicial assistance requests, U.S. courts and litigants will explore other methods to effect service of process.  Where service is effected by an agent in the Russian Federation, such as a Russian attorney, such a person may execute an affidavit of service at the U.S. embassy or a U.S. consulate in Russia as a routine notarial service.

Criminal Matters:  U.S. federal or state prosecutors should also contact the Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division, Department of Justice at (202) 514-0015 for guidance about the U.S. – Russian Federation bilateral Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters treaty (TIAS) which entered into force January 31, 2002.  The Russian Federation’s moratorium on judicial cooperation with the United States does not appear to extend to requests under this treaty, which is not available as a mechanism for defense requests.

Defense Requests in Criminal Matters:  Criminal defendants, or their defense counsel, who wish to request judicial assistance in obtaining evidence or in effecting service of documents abroad in connection with criminal matters may make such requests pursuant to letters rogatory in accordance with Article 5(j) of the VCCR.  Defense requests for compulsion of evidence in criminal matters may also be prepared in the form of letters rogatory transmitted via diplomatic channels from the U.S. Department of State, see our Letters Rogatory feature.  In the Department’s experience however, all such requests have been returned unexecuted for the reasons given in the summary section above.

Authentication of Documents:  The Russian Federation is a party to the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement for Legalization of Foreign Public Documents.  For information about authentication of documents see our web page notarial and authentication feature.  See also the U.S. Department of State Authentications Office webpage.  Additional guidance for consular officers about authentication of documents is available at 7 Foreign Affairs Manual 870.

The Department of State is aware that a number of Russian jurisdictions have rejected U.S. federal and state issued apostille certificates for reasons inconsistent with the requirements of the Legalization Convention, particularly in the context of intercountry adoption.  Between October 28 – November 4, 2003, a Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the Hague Service, Evidence and Legalization Conventions convened at The Hague.  The Special Commission’s Conclusions and Recommendations of November 4, 2003, page 5, paragraphs 13, provide:

The SC underlined the importance of the principle that an Apostille that has been established according to the requirements of the Convention in the State of issuance must be accepted and produce its effects in any State of production. With a view to furtherfacilitating free circulation of Apostilles, the SC recalled the importance of the Model certificate annexed to the Convention. The SC recommended that Apostilles issued bycompetent authorities should conform as closely as possible to this model. However,variations in the form of an Apostille among issuing authorities should not be a basis forrejection as long as the Apostille is clearly identifiable as an Apostille issued under theConvention. The SC firmly rejects, as contrary to the Convention, isolated practices among States party that require Apostilles to be legalised.

As regards the rejection of Apostilles for reasons related to how the certificate is attached to the document, the Conclusions and Recommendations of November 4, 2003, page 5, paragraph 16 specifically provide:
           
The SC noted the variety of means for affixing Apostilles to the public document. These means may include rubber stamp, glue, (multi-coloured) ribbons, wax seals, impressed seals, self-adhesive stickers, etc.; as to an allonge, these means may include glue, grommets, staples, etc. The SC noted that all these means are acceptable under the Convention, and that, therefore, these variations cannot be a basis for the rejection of Apostilles.

The Department of State has raised this issue with the Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation on multiple occasions.  In order to assist in avoiding future Apostille rejections in the Russian Federation for reasons that are inconsistent with the requirements of the Legalization Convention, the Department of State has also prepared a translation into Russian of the Conclusions and Recommendations of the 2003 Special Commission and provided it to the Russian Federation.  Individuals who have had Apostilles rejected in the Russian Federation who feel that a copy of this document may be useful in their particular circumstances may request one by sending an email to askpri@state.gov.  Apostilles issued in the United States may be verified by contacting the U.S. competent authority that issued them.  Please see the Hague Conference website for a list of U.S. competent authorities.

Enforcement of Judgments:  There is no treaty in force between the United States and any country on the reciprocal enforcement of judgments in general.

Lists of Attorneys in Russia:  See the U.S. Embassy Moscow List of Attorneys.  See also Retaining a Foreign Attorney

ADDRESS OF THE AMERICAN EMBASSY IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION:
The Embassy of the United States of America
Bolshoy Deviatinsky Pereulok No. 8
Moscow 121099, Russian Federation - PSC-77, APO AE 09721
Tel: +7 (495) 728-5000, fax: 728-5090

U.S. Government Links